Lluberes v. UNCOMMON PRODUCTIONS, LLC
663 F.3d 6, 2011 WL 6015606 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Individuals who voluntarily and extensively engage in a public relations campaign to influence the resolution of a pre-existing public controversy, including targeting U.S. media and policymakers, become limited-purpose public figures for defamation claims related to that controversy.
Facts:
- Felipe and Juan Vicini Lluberes were senior executives in a family conglomerate that owned and operated sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic.
- For many years, the treatment of Haitian laborers and the conditions in company towns (bateyes) on these plantations were the subject of a public controversy.
- Beginning around 2000, Juan Vicini engaged with Fr. Christopher Hartley, a prominent critic of the batey system, by meeting with him and touring the bateyes to address the problems.
- After the collaboration with Fr. Hartley ended, the Vicinis continued their efforts, which included outreach to the U.S. embassy in Santo Domingo and escorting officials on visits to the bateyes.
- In 2005, the Vicinis hired Newlink Communications, a U.S.-based public relations firm, for approximately $1.2 million to execute a massive PR campaign to improve their image in both the Dominican Republic and the U.S.
- As part of this campaign, Felipe and Juan met with Dominican government officials, church leaders, and the press to publicize their social initiatives.
- Felipe Vicini also traveled to the U.S. to meet with journalists, gave an interview to CNN that aired on 'Anderson Cooper 360°', and led a U.S. congressional delegation on a tour of the bateyes.
- In 2007, Uncommon Productions released a documentary, 'The Price of Sugar,' which depicted the labor conditions and identified the Vicinis by name.
Procedural Posture:
- Felipe and Juan Vicini Lluberes sued Uncommon Productions, LLC and William Haney, III in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The Vicinis alleged defamation based on 53 statements in the film, which they later reduced to seven.
- The filmmakers (defendants) moved for summary judgment, arguing the Vicinis were limited-purpose public figures who could not prove actual malice.
- During discovery, the Vicinis filed a motion to compel production of communications withheld by the filmmakers on attorney-client privilege grounds.
- The district court granted the filmmakers' motion for summary judgment, finding the Vicinis were limited-purpose public figures.
- The district court also denied the Vicinis' motion to compel discovery.
- The Vicinis (appellants) appealed both the entry of summary judgment and the denial of their motion to compel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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:
Do individuals who, as leaders of a family business, engage in an extensive, multi-year public relations campaign to influence public and political opinion regarding a controversy surrounding their business practices qualify as limited-purpose public figures for a defamation lawsuit arising from that controversy?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard
Yes, individuals who engage in such a campaign qualify as limited-purpose public figures. Applying the test from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the court determined that a public controversy regarding the bateyes existed long before the film was released. The Vicini brothers then voluntarily injected themselves into this controversy to influence its resolution. Their actions went far beyond mere self-defense; they orchestrated a multi-million dollar, international public relations blitz that included hiring a PR firm, courting media in the Dominican Republic and the U.S., and lobbying U.S. officials. This conduct constituted a 'thrusting into the vortex' of the controversy, making them public figures for this limited purpose and requiring them to prove actual malice. The court rejected the Vicinis' argument that their actions were a protected 'privilege of reply' to earlier articles, finding their campaign was too extensive to be considered merely defensive. Finally, their status as public figures extends to the U.S. because the controversy itself resonated there and they specifically targeted U.S. audiences and policymakers.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for becoming a limited-purpose public figure, emphasizing that a plaintiff's voluntary and extensive efforts to shape public opinion are paramount. It demonstrates that a well-funded, strategic public relations campaign serves as powerful evidence of an attempt to influence a controversy's outcome. The ruling also affirms that public-figure status is not constrained by geography; when a controversy and a plaintiff's related actions are international, the plaintiff's status can extend to any jurisdiction where they sought to influence the debate.
Unlock the full brief for Lluberes v. UNCOMMON PRODUCTIONS, LLC