Diaz v. NBC Universal, Inc.
337 F. App'x 94 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the group libel doctrine, a plaintiff cannot sustain a defamation claim if the allegedly defamatory statement references them solely as a member of a large group, unless the circumstances of the publication clearly indicate a particular reference to the individual plaintiff.
Facts:
- Louis Diaz, Gregory Korniloff, and Jack Toal were former special agents of the New York office of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
- These agents were employed by the DEA at some time during the period from 1973 through 1985.
- NBC Universal released the feature film 'American Gangster,' which described itself as based on a true story and as a fictionalized version of events.
- The film 'American Gangster' included a legend at its conclusion stating that the 'collaboration' of Richard Roberts (a New Jersey police officer) and Frank Lucas (a major narcotics trafficker) 'led to the convictions of three quarters of New York City’s Drug Enforcement Agency.'
- The New York City DEA comprised approximately 400 individuals (or potentially 233, as argued by appellants) during the relevant period.
- The film's storyline portrayed corrupt officers as members of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which the film indicated, and appellants conceded, was a unit of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), a non-federal entity.
- During a scene depicting a search of Frank Lucas’s home in 1975, the film's dialogue explicitly distinguished the individuals conducting the search from 'the Feds.'
- Appellants attempted to narrow the group referenced by the legend to a nine-member DEA team that conducted the 1975 search of Lucas’s home.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Diaz, Gregory Korniloff, and Jack Toal, along with a putative class, filed a complaint against NBC Universal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- NBC Universal filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
- The District Court (McMahon, J.) granted NBC Universal’s motion to dismiss, issuing a Decision and Order.
- Diaz, Korniloff, and Toal (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'of and concerning' requirement for defamation, under the group libel doctrine, prevent individual members of a large, unnamed group from sustaining a libel claim when a statement refers to a portion of that group without specifically identifying individuals?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the 'of and concerning' requirement prevents individual members of a large, unnamed group from sustaining a libel claim in these circumstances. The court reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo, reiterating the fundamental constitutional requirement in defamation that an allegedly defamatory statement must be 'of and concerning' the plaintiff. Under the group libel doctrine, a claim is insufficient if the statement references the plaintiff solely as a member of a group, unless there are circumstances indicating a particular reference to the plaintiff. The court found that the group, 'New York City’s DEA,' was too large (400 or 233 individuals), and the legend referred only to 'three quarters' of its members, making it impossible for a jury to reasonably conclude that the statements referred to individual appellants. This conclusion was bolstered by the film's narrative, which depicted corrupt officers as part of the NYPD's SIU, a non-federal entity. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellants' attempt to define a smaller, nine-member group, citing that the group must be defined by the comment itself. Even if considered, the film's dialogue explicitly distinguished the searchers from 'the Feds,' portraying them as NYPD SIU members, thus preventing a finding that the legend was 'of and concerning' the individual DEA agents in that smaller group. The court relied on precedents such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Algarin v. Town of Wallkill, and Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc..
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the high bar for plaintiffs bringing defamation claims under the group libel doctrine, particularly when dealing with large, governmental organizations. It reinforces that specific identification or reference to a very small, ascertainable group is typically required for a statement to be 'of and concerning' an individual. The decision serves as an important precedent for media companies, illustrating that general statements about corruption within a significant portion of a large, un-named group are unlikely to support individual defamation suits, thereby protecting creative works from overly broad claims.
