Peckham v. Boston Herald, Inc.
48 Mass. App. Ct. 282, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1178, 719 N.E.2d 888 (1999)
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment and common law principles protect the truthful publication of information, even if private, if it concerns a matter of legitimate public concern, thereby precluding liability for public disclosure of private facts under G. L. c. 214, § 1B.
Facts:
- John M. Peckham, III, was a prominent Boston real estate professional and civic leader, recognized as 'Realtor of the Year' and one of the 'Ten Outstanding Young Leaders'.
- In early 1989, Peckham hired Louise Gendron as a real estate broker, and they subsequently became involved in an intimate relationship.
- In the summer of 1989, Gendron informed Peckham that she was pregnant with his child, a fact Peckham did not widely acknowledge.
- In September 1989, after their relationship ended, Peckham authorized the termination of Gendron's employment.
- On November 20, 1989, Gendron gave birth to a son, but Peckham disputed paternity and insisted on genetic testing.
- In December 1989, Gendron filed a paternity action against Peckham in the Probate and Family Court, a fact Peckham later shared with his daughter and two close friends.
- On January 10, 1990, Boston Herald columnist Norma Nathan contacted Gendron’s attorney, Franklin Levy, who confirmed the existence of the paternity action and discussed details of an affidavit.
- On January 11, 1990, the Boston Herald published a story in Norma Nathan’s 'The Eye' column detailing the paternity suit, Peckham's denial, and statements from Gendron's attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- In December 1989, Louise Gendron filed a paternity action against John M. Peckham, III, in the Probate and Family Court.
- In July 1992, Peckham filed suit against Gendron and her attorney, Franklin Levy.
- In September 1994, Peckham amended his complaint to add a claim against the Boston Herald for the public disclosure of private facts under G. L. c. 214, § 1B.
- In June 1997, the Superior Court granted the Boston Herald’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Peckham’s prior disclosures of the paternity action to friends and family rendered the facts no longer private.
- Peckham, as the appellant, appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
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 publication of truthful information about a prominent civic and business leader's paternity suit, involving a former employee and potential public assistance, constitute an actionable public disclosure of private facts under G. L. c. 214, § 1B, when a court deems the information a matter of legitimate public concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, J.
No, the truthful publication of information about a prominent individual's paternity suit does not constitute actionable public disclosure of private facts under G. L. c. 214, § 1B, because the information, in this context, concerned a matter of legitimate public concern. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Herald. While acknowledging that discussing sensitive matters with close friends and family might not always forfeit privacy (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D comment b), the court found it unnecessary to resolve that factual question. Instead, it held that the information published by the Herald was newsworthy as a matter of law, a determination properly made by a judge at summary judgment to protect constitutional free speech and press interests (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and others). This conclusion was based on several factors: Peckham's prominence as a real estate professional and civic leader (citing Campbell v. Seabury Press, Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D comments e, f); the article's relevance to modern public interests like workplace relationships, employee layoffs, and potential public assistance (citing The Florida Star v. B.J.F.); and the inherent public interest in judicial proceedings (citing Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D comments f, g). The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that G. L. c. 209C, § 13 (regarding confidentiality of paternity records), was dispositive, noting no evidence that the reporter unlawfully accessed court records.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the robust constitutional protections afforded to freedom of speech and the press, particularly concerning the truthful dissemination of information. It clarifies that 'newsworthiness' can be definitively determined as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage, thereby limiting potential 'chilling effects' of protracted litigation on media outlets. The decision outlines key factors for assessing legitimate public concern, especially for public figures and events with broader societal implications (e.g., workplace dynamics, public welfare), effectively narrowing the scope of actionable privacy claims under G. L. c. 214, § 1B, in Massachusetts. It also distinguishes privacy claims from public records law, noting the different standards for disclosure.
