No. 15-1103 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— DONALD THOMAS SCHOLZ, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MICKI DELP, ET AL., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ———— RESPONDENT BOSTON HERALD’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— JEFFREY S. ROBBINS Counsel of Record JOSEPH D. LIPCHITZ MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 (617) 542-6000 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Respondent March 30, 2016 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether there are “compelling reasons” justifying review of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision holding that articles allegedly “implying” that Petitioner Scholz was “to blame” for the thought process that led a decedent to decide to take his life constituted no more than non- actionable opinion where the Supreme Judicial Court, applying well-settled rules of law repeatedly affirmed by this Court, concluded that such an “implication” was not reasonably interpreted as an assertion of fact and would not be provable as false. 2. Whether there are “compelling reasons” justify- ing review of that decision where it was based on a rule of law which, while also embraced by this Court, has been found by Massachusetts courts to be wholly independent of federal constitutional law and grounded in Massachusetts common law and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. 3. Whether “compelling reasons” justifying review exist where (1) there is no conflict whatsoever, let alone a “deep and abiding” one, presented by the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision; and (2) there are only two cases in which courts have been asked to decide whether assertions of blame for a suicide constituted non-actionable opinion, one of which was this one, and both held that the alleged assertions were non-actionable. 4. Whether “compelling reasons” justifying review of the decision exist where (1) Petitioners point to only six cases in the history of American jurisprudence in which defamation claims have been brought arising in any way from a suicide and, therefore, this is not at all (i) ii a case that is “particularly likely” to recur; and (2) both the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Boston Herald and the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision affirming it were based on a voluminous factual record that included the specific statements, the specific factual context in which they appear, and undisputed testimony from those closest to the decedent about what he had told them in the weeks and months before he took his life. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with United States Supreme Court Rule 29.6, the Boston Herald, Inc. states that it has no parent corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns more than 10% of its stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............ iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... viii SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BOSTON HERALD’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ..................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 6 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................ 10 PETITIONERS’ MISSTATEMENTS ........................ 20 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 21 I. The SJC’s Decision Affirming Summary Judgment ....................................... 21 II. This Case Is Not Appropriate For Review By This Court For Six Reasons ........................................................... 26 A. The SJC Did Not Create A “Categorical Presumption” That Claims About A Person’s Motivations For Committing Suicide Are “Exempt” From Liability For Defamation .......................... 26 B. There Is No Conflict At All Raised By This Case, Let Alone A “Significant Conflict” ................................. 27 C. The SJC Did Not “Depart” From This Court’s Decision In Milkovich ........... 29 (v) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page D. The SJC’s Decision Is Supported By Independent And Adequate State Law Grounds, And By Other Grounds...................................................... 30 E. Contrary To The Petitioners’ Assertion, The Issue Decided By The SJC Is One That Virtually Never Arises .............................................. 31 F. The Superior Court’s Decision Granting Summary Judgment And The SJC’s Decision Affirming It Were Based On A Voluminous And Highly Specific Factual Record ................. 33 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 34 APPENDIX Appendix A: Opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Scholz v. Delp, SJC-11511 & SJC-11621 (Nov. 25, 2015). .............. 1a Appendix B: Summary Judgment Decision of the Massachusetts Superior Court in Scholz v. Boston Herald, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1010 (March 27, 2013). .............. 23a vii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Appendix C: Transcript of Day One of Summary Judgment Hearing in Scholz v. Boston Herald, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1010, dated Oct. 10, 2012, before the Massachusetts Superior Court. .............................................. 50a Appendix D: Transcript of Day Two of Summary Judgment Hearing in Scholz v. Boston Herald, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1010, dated Nov. 19, 2012, before the Massachusetts Superior Court. ............................................ 130a viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Cole v. Westinghouse Broad. Corp., 435 N.E.2d 1021 (Mass. 1982) .................... 9, 23 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) ......................................... 30 Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib. Inc., 666 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2012) ................. 4, 5, 27 Gouthro v. Gilgun, 427 N.E.2d 1166 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981) .......................................................... 22, 31 Greenbelt Coop. Publishing Ass’n, Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) ................... 2, 3, 5, 29 Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117 (1945) ..................................... 4, 30 HipSaver, Inc. v. Kiel, 984 N.E.2d 755 (Mass. 2013) .......................... 10 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ............................... 24, 27, 29 Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Comm’n, 379 U.S. 487 (1965) ........................... 4 King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 512 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. 1987) ............................ 8 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) ......................................... 33 Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) ......................................... 30 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Lane v. MPG Newspapers, 781 N.E.2d 800 (Mass. 2003) .................... 10, 22 Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974) ............................. 2, 3, 5, 29 Lyons v. Globe Newspaper Co., 612 N.E.2d 1158 (Mass. 1993) .................passim MacRae v. Afro-American Co., 172 F. Supp. 184 (E.D. Pa. 1959), aff’d 274 F.2d 287 (3d Cir. 1960) ........................ 5, 28 Mihalik v. Duprey, 417 N.E.2d 1238 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981) .......................................................... 22, 31 Milgroom v. News Group Bos., Inc., 586 N.E.2d 985 (Mass. 1992) .......................... 10 Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) ......................................passim Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps, Inc. v. Cent. Broad. Corp., 396 N.E.2d 996 (Mass. 1979) .................................................................. 9 Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hendricks Cty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U.S. 170 (1981) ......................................... 33 Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) ..................................passim Rice v. Sioux City Mem’l Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70 (1955) ........................................... 32 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Rutt v. Bethlehems’ Globe Publ’g Co., 484 A.2d 72 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) .............. 5, 28 Scholz v. Boston Herald, Inc., 2013 Mass. Super. LEXIS 83 (Mass. Super. Ct. March 27, 2013) ..........passim Scholz v. Delp, 41 N.E.3d 38 (Mass. 2015) .......................passim St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) ......................................... 10 Tatum v. Dallas Morning News, No. 05-14-01077-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 13067 (Tex. App. Dec. 30, 2015) ............................................................ 5, 28 Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 (1971) ................................... 22, 31 Washington Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Burton, 287 U.S. 97 (1932) ............................. 32 Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2003) ......................... 5, 28 CONSTITUTIONS U.S. Const. amend. I ...................................... 9, 30 Mass. Declaration of Rights, art. 16 ...........passim RULES Sup. Ct. R. 15 ........................................................ 1 xi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Sup. Ct. R. 15.2 ................................................... 20 OTHER AUTHORITIES Stephen Shapiro, et al., Supreme Court Practice (10th ed. 2013) .................................. 32 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BOSTON HERALD’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION Pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rule 15, the Boston Herald, Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa (collectively, “the Herald”) hereby oppose the petition for a writ of certiorari of Donald Thomas Scholz (“Scholz”) and another (collectively, “Petitioners”) seeking review of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) in Scholz v. Delp, 41 N.E.3d 38 (Mass. 2015)