Condit v. Dunne
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7247, 317 F.Supp.2d 344, 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1289 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Republishing a third party's detailed, false, and defamatory allegations of fact is not protected as opinion under the First Amendment, even if the source is disclosed and the republisher includes some disclaimers of verification.
Facts:
- Gary Condit, a U.S. Congressman from California, publicly acknowledged he was friends with Chandra Levy, an employee of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
- On or about May 1, 2001, Ms. Levy disappeared from her apartment in Washington, D.C., sparking a media frenzy focused on her relationship with Condit.
- Dominick Dunne, a television commentator and author, appeared on 'The Laura Ingraham Show' and recounted a detailed story he heard from a 'horse whisperer,' who in turn heard it from a 'procurer.'
- The story alleged that Condit, a guest at Middle Eastern embassies, had complained that Levy was a 'clinger,' which 'created the environment that led to her disappearance.'
- The story further alleged that Levy was put on a private plane and dropped at sea.
- Dunne repeated variations of this story and other theories linking Condit to Levy's disappearance at two dinner parties, in an online column for 'Entertainment Tonight,' and on 'Larry King Live.'
- After Ms. Levy's remains were found in Rock Creek Park in May 2002, Dunne was quoted in the Boston Herald and USA Today continuing to suggest Condit's involvement.
- Law enforcement officials publicly stated that Condit was not a suspect in the investigation, and Condit had no involvement in Levy's disappearance or murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Gary Condit filed a complaint for slander per se against Defendant Dominick Dunne in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Condit sought $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.
- Dunne filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The District Court is ruling on Dunne's motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a commentator's statements that republish detailed, third-party allegations of a public official's criminal involvement constitute provably false assertions of fact that can support a slander claim, rather than protected opinion under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Leisure, District Judge
Yes. Statements that republish specific, detailed, and false factual allegations of criminality are not protected as opinion and can support a slander claim. The court first determined that California law applies, as California has the most significant interest in the litigation because the plaintiff is a California resident and elected official whose reputation was most harmed there. Under California law and the First Amendment test from Milkovich, the central inquiry is whether a statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. The court found that Dunne's statements on 'The Laura Ingraham Show,' 'Larry King Live,' 'ET Online,' and at the dinner parties were actionable because they republished specific, detailed allegations of criminal conduct (e.g., kidnapping, murder conspiracy) that are provably false. The court rejected Dunne's defenses, holding that (1) one who republishes a libel is as liable as the original publisher, even if the source is named; (2) opinions based on disclosed but false facts are not protected; and (3) disclaimers like 'I can’t vouch for any of this' do not immunize a speaker who otherwise lends credibility to the false story. However, the court dismissed the claims related to the Boston Herald and USA Today articles, finding those statements were pure speculation based on publicly known facts (i.e., that Levy's body was found in a park, disproving the 'dropped at sea' story) and did not imply knowledge of undisclosed defamatory facts.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between protected opinion and actionable defamation in the context of media commentary on public figures. It strongly affirms the 'republication rule,' holding that media personalities cannot shield themselves from liability by merely attributing defamatory factual allegations to a third-party source. The decision demonstrates that the context of a statement (e.g., a talk show) and the inclusion of verbal hedges or disclaimers are not dispositive if the statement's substance conveys specific, provably false assertions of fact. This serves as a caution to journalists and commentators that even during a 'media frenzy' filled with speculation, repeating detailed accusations of criminality carries significant legal risk.
