No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- GANNETT CO., INC., GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK INC., MULTIMEDIA HOLDINGS CORPORATION d/b/a KARE 11-TV and d/b/a ST. CLOUD TIMES, Petitioners, v. RYAN LARSON, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Minnesota Supreme Court --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- STEVEN J. WELLS Counsel of Record TIMOTHY J. DROSKE NICHOLAS J. BULLARD DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners Gannett Co., Inc., Gannett Satellite Information Network Inc., Multimedia Holdings Corporation d/b/a KARE 11-TV and d/b/a St. Cloud Times ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED “[W]here a newspaper publishes speech of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff cannot recover damages without also showing that the statements at issue are false.” Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768-69 (1986). And generally, “if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not con- stitutionally punish publication of the information. .” Smith v. Daily Mail Publ’g Co., 443 U.S. 97, 102 (1979). Here, Plaintiff claimed news media defendants defamed him by falsely reporting on what law enforcement said in an official news conference and news release regarding Plaintiff ’s arrest for a police officer’s murder (Plaintiff was later exonerated). A jury found that Defendants’ reporting on what police said was true. But the Minnesota Supreme Court nonetheless ordered a new trial for the jury to instead consider the statements under the “fair report privilege,” thereby subjecting Defendants to potential liability for reporting already found to be truthful. The question presented is: In a defamation case, where a jury finds that media defendants’ reporting on what law enforcement said in a news release and news conference was substantially accurate and thus not false, does the First Amendment permit a state court to require the jury to consider whether such reports met the fair report privilege’s requirements, thereby displacing the falsity element of defamation? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Gannett Co., Inc., Gannett Satel- lite Information Network Inc., Multimedia Holdings Corporation d/b/a KARE 11-TV and d/b/a St. Cloud Times. They were defendants in the trial court, appellants in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and respondents in the Minnesota Supreme Court.1 Respondent is Ryan Larson (“Larson”). He was plaintiff in the trial court, respondent in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and appellant in the Minnesota Supreme Court. 1 During trial, the trial court dismissed Gannett Co., Inc. and Gannett Satellite Information Network Inc. (“Gannett Defendants”). App. 92 n.1. The trial court’s post-trial order—from which Larson appealed—does not address or purport to reverse that decision. But in the event the post-trial order can be read to apply to all Defendants and without waiving their rights to rely upon and enforce the trial court’s earlier dismissal, the Gannett Defendants joined in the appeal from the post-trial order (App. 92) and join in this petition. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Gannett Co., Inc. is a publicly-traded company. BlackRock, Inc. and Vanguard, Inc., publicly-traded companies, each own 10% or more of the stock of Gannett Co., Inc. No other publicly-traded company owns 10% or more of the stock of Gannett Co., Inc. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is now Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. Gannett Co., Inc. is the sole member of Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. TEGNA Inc. is the sole shareholder of Multimedia Holdings Corporation d/b/a KARE 11-TV and d/b/a St. Cloud Times. BlackRock, Inc. and The Vanguard Group, Inc., publicly-traded companies, each own 10% or more of TEGNA Inc. stock. iv RELATED PROCEEDINGS Minnesota Supreme Court: Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., A17-1068 (April 13, 2020) Minnesota Court of Appeals: Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., A17-1068 (May 7, 2018) Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin: Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., 27-CV-15- 9371 (June 13, 2017) Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., 27-CV-15- 9371 (Jan. 5, 2017) Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., 27-CV-15- 9371 (Nov. 10, 2016) Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., et al., 27-CV-15- 9371 (May 19, 2016) v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...... iii RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................ iv PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ....... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ... 2 STATEMENT ....................................................... 2 A. Background ................................................ 6 B. Trial Court Proceedings ............................ 7 1. The Trial Court Rejects the Fair Report Privilege ................................... 8 2. The Jury Finds the Statements Were True ..................................................... 9 3. The Trial Court Grants a New Trial, Finding the Statements False as a Matter of Law ...................................... 11 C. The Court of Appeals Finds the Fair Report Privilege Applies and the Jury’s “No-Falsity” Verdict Showed the Privilege Was Not Abused ......................................... 12 D. The Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms the Fair Report Privilege, but Remands for a New Trial Despite the Jury’s Explicit Finding of “No Falsity” .............................. 12 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page E. Petition for Rehearing ............................... 15 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ..... 16 I. The Decision Below Conflicts with this Court’s First Amendment Precedents ....... 17 A. The Decision Below Conflicts with Hepps ................................................... 18 B. The Decision Below Conflicts with Daily Mail and its Progeny ................. 20 C. The Decision Below Conflicts with this Court’s Precedents Regarding the Constitutionally-Mandated Falsity Standard .............................................. 22 II. The Decision Below Highlights the Division and Confusion Regarding First Amend- ment Protection of Truthful Reporting on Government Statements and Investiga- tions ........................................................... 28 III. The Decision Below Threatens to Chill Constitutional Speech when Reporting on Government Investigations and State- ments ......................................................... 32 IV. This Case Is the Right Vehicle for Resolving these Important Questions ......................... 37 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 39 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court (Feb. 26, 2020) .................................................. App. 1 Appendix B: Order Denying Petition for Rehearing of the Minnesota Supreme Court (Mar. 30, 2020) .... App. 87 Appendix C: Judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court (Apr. 13, 2020) ................................................ App. 88 Appendix D: Opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals (May 7, 2018) .................................................. App. 91 Appendix E: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff ’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or for a New Trial and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike of the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court (Jun. 13, 2017) ............................................. App. 124 Appendix F: Judgment of the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court (Jan. 5, 2017) ........................ App. 145 Appending G: Special Verdict Form in the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court (Nov. 21, 2016) ........ App. 147 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Appendix H: Order Modifying the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court (Nov. 10, 2016) ............................................. App. 186 Appendix I: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court (May 19, 2016) ................................... App. 194 Appendix J: Petition for Rehearing by Respondents/Cross- Appellants to the Minnesota Supreme Court (Mar. 11, 2020) .............................................. App. 228 Appendix K: Excerpt of Corrected Final Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 13, Definition of “false” (Dist. Ct. Doc. 127) ................................................. App. 245 Appendix L: Trial Transcript Excerpts, Plaintiff Ryan Larson Direct Examination (Trial Day 6, Nov. 15, 2016) ......................................................