Grogan v. KOKH, LLC
2011 OK CIV APP 34, 256 P.3d 1021 (2011)
Rule of Law:
The actual malice standard for a false light invasion of privacy claim, applicable to public figures, does not require a plaintiff to prove that the media defendant intended the false implication, but rather that the broadcast could reasonably be interpreted as portraying the plaintiff in a false and highly offensive light, and the defendant knew the portrayal was false or acted with reckless disregard as to its falsity.
Facts:
- Bill Grogan was a teacher and former coach at Macomb High School.
- After a basketball game incident involving a student ringing a cow bell, Grogan explained a referee's authority to a student, comparing it to a deputy sheriff's authority to shoot if necessary to stop a crime.
- Other students subsequently reported to school officials that Grogan had threatened to shoot students who did not leave after the game.
- School officials investigated the matter and concluded that there had been a misunderstanding and that Grogan had not intended to threaten anyone.
- Apparently unsatisfied, some parents contacted KOKH Channel 25.
- KOKH broadcast a news story on February 29, 2008, which began with a KOKH employee stating, 'a teacher is accused of threatening to shoot students,' and then, while showing Grogan's picture, a reporter stated, 'on the heels of terrorist threats at local schools and a shooting at NIU, some parents in Macomb are fuming. They say a teacher threatened their children and he should be punished like anyone else.'
- After the KOKH broadcast, school officials revisited the matter and decided to reprimand Grogan for unprofessional conduct and not renew his coaching contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill Grogan sued KOKH, LLC, Andrew Spino, Jaime Cerreta, Matt Austin (KOKH defendants), and three parents in district court.
- The KOKH defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted the KOKH defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court directed that its order granting the KOKH defendants' motion for summary judgment be filed as a final judgment pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 994(4).
- Plaintiff Bill Grogan appealed the district court's order to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
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 actual malice standard in a false light invasion of privacy claim require a public figure plaintiff to prove that the media defendant intended the false implication, or is it sufficient to show that the broadcast could reasonably be interpreted as portraying the plaintiff in a false and highly offensive light, and the defendant knew the portrayal was false or acted with reckless disregard?
Opinions:
Majority - John F. Fischer, Presiding Judge
No, the actual malice standard for a false light invasion of privacy claim does not require a public figure plaintiff to prove that the media defendant intended the false implication. Instead, liability may arise if the broadcast could reasonably be interpreted as portraying the plaintiff in a false and highly offensive light, and the defendant knew the portrayal was false or acted with reckless disregard. The court affirmed summary judgment for KOKH on Grogan's defamation claim because the broadcast accurately reported that parents accused Grogan of threatening students, and truth is a complete defense to defamation. However, for the false light invasion of privacy claim, the court determined that the broadcast's lead-in, juxtaposing Grogan's image with references to 'terrorist threats' and a school shooting, could, as a matter of law, reasonably be interpreted as falsely portraying Grogan as a terrorist or associated with terrorism. This portrayal would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and it was undisputed that Grogan is not a terrorist. The court rejected KOKH's argument that actual malice requires proof of the reporter's subjective intent to create a false implication or knowledge that viewers would interpret it in a false light, drawing an analogy to defamation law where unintended but reasonably understood defamatory meanings can still lead to liability. The court emphasized that the second alternative of the actual malice test exists to impose liability on publishers who do not know a portrayal is false but proceed with publication in reckless disregard. Since a reasonable inference from the reporter's testimony was that he knew Grogan was not a terrorist, and the broadcast could be interpreted to portray him as such, the 'knowledge' prong of actual malice was satisfied for summary judgment purposes. The court also rejected KOKH's argument that the full context of the broadcast dispelled any false light, noting that initial 'sound bites' or headlines can create a lasting false impression even if later, more accurate information is provided. Finally, KOKH's claims of fair report and fair comment privilege were denied because the 'terrorist' implication was not a fair report of any official proceeding and portraying Grogan as a terrorist was a verifiable factual assertion, not opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the actual malice standard in false light invasion of privacy claims, particularly for public figures. By rejecting the media defendant's 'lack of intent' argument, the court signals that broadcasters must consider not only the literal truth of statements but also the reasonable implications and overall impressions created by their presentation of information. This ruling suggests that even if later segments of a broadcast provide clarifying or contradictory information, a highly offensive false light created in an initial 'sound bite' or lead-in may still be actionable. This could encourage media outlets to exercise greater care in their introductions and headlines to avoid misleading viewers and improperly associating individuals with sensational but unrelated events.
