Huckabee v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP
995 S.W.2d 452 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a defamation suit brought by a public official, a media defendant who moves for summary judgment by producing evidence negating actual malice shifts the burden to the plaintiff to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact; the plaintiff is not required to meet the higher 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard at the summary judgment stage.
Facts:
- In 1988, Sandra Hebert alleged that her ex-husband, Michael Hebert, injured their four-year-old son, Wayne. Sandra videotaped Wayne stating his father had injured him.
- Following an investigation by authorities who could not identify the abuser, Sandra Hebert filed a motion in Judge Charles Dean Huekabee's court to modify the custody order and restrict Michael Hebert's visitation.
- After a three-day hearing, Judge Huekabee made Michael Hebert the managing conservator and denied Sandra Hebert all access to the child, a more drastic remedy than Michael Hebert had requested.
- In 1991, filmmakers working for HBO began producing a documentary called 'Women on Trial,' focusing on mothers who felt unfairly treated by the family court system.
- The filmmakers researched the Hebert case by reviewing court transcripts, interviewing Sandra Hebert and her attorneys, and viewing the videotapes of Wayne.
- The filmmakers interviewed Judge Huekabee, who discussed the case in 'hypothetical' terms, and also interviewed a court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Kit Harrison, whose report concluded that the child's brother, not the father, was the abuser.
- HBO broadcast 'Women on Trial' in 1992, featuring the Hebert case and portraying Judge Huekabee's decision critically. The documentary omitted certain evidence from the custody hearing and Dr. Harrison's specific reasons for his conclusion.
Procedural Posture:
- Judge Huckabee sued HBO, its producers, and others for defamation in a Texas state trial court.
- HBO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that it did not act with actual malice.
- The trial court denied HBO's motion for summary judgment.
- HBO, as a media defendant, filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and rendered summary judgment for HBO, holding that HBO had negated actual malice as a matter of law.
- Judge Huckabee, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 a public official plaintiff raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion when the media defendant provides affidavits attesting to their belief in the publication's truth, and the plaintiff's evidence consists of the defendant's desire for an unflattering portrayal, selective editing of facts and interviews, and disregard of the plaintiff's denials?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Phillips
No. A public official plaintiff does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to actual malice merely by showing evidence of unflattering portrayals or selective editing where the defendant has presented plausible evidence of their belief in the publication's truth. The court first declined to adopt the federal 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard for summary judgment motions in public-figure defamation cases, reaffirming the holding in 'Casso v. Brand'. The court reasoned that Texas summary judgment practice does not involve weighing evidence, a function the federal standard would improperly require. The court then found that HBO successfully negated actual malice as a matter of law through affidavits from its producers and executives, which established their belief in the documentary's truth and detailed their research. Judge Huekabee’s controverting evidence—such as a producer's internal memo calling him a 'corrupt judge,' editorial pressure to focus on the mothers' perspective, and the omission of facts favorable to the judge—was insufficient to create a fact issue. The court held that ill will is not actual malice, editorial choices are protected by the First Amendment absent a gross distortion, and disregarding a public figure's denials is not evidence of doubt, as such denials are commonplace.
Dissenting - Justice Hecht
Yes. The plaintiff produced some evidence of actual malice, which should be sufficient to defeat summary judgment under the standard the majority purports to apply. The dissent strongly argued that the court should abandon its outlier position and adopt the 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard for summary judgment used by the federal courts and thirty-seven other states, as articulated in 'Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.'. The majority's reasons for rejecting this standard—that it requires weighing evidence and is too vague—are unpersuasive and contradicted by the majority's own application of the standard in practice. The dissent contended that the majority, while claiming to use the lower 'scintilla of evidence' standard, implicitly and improperly applied a heightened standard to grant summary judgment for HBO. Under a true 'scintilla' standard, Judge Huekabee's evidence of selective editing and disregard for conflicting facts was enough to raise a fact issue, and the case should have been allowed to proceed.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Texas's rejection of the federal 'Anderson v. Liberty Lobby' heightened evidentiary standard for summary judgment in public-figure defamation cases. By maintaining that a plaintiff need only raise a 'genuine issue of material fact' rather than present 'clear and convincing' evidence of malice, the Texas Supreme Court makes it theoretically easier for such plaintiffs to survive summary judgment than in federal court or most other states. However, the majority's rigorous application of this standard demonstrates that the practical hurdle for plaintiffs remains exceptionally high. The decision reinforces the broad protection afforded to media defendants regarding editorial choices and the difficulty of proving the subjective state of mind required for actual malice.
Unlock the full brief for Huckabee v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP