Rich v. Fox News Network, LLC
Unspecified in provided text (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A series of acts that together constitute a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment can be considered extreme and outrageous conduct for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, particularly when the defendant knows of the plaintiff's peculiar susceptibility to emotional harm.
Facts:
- On July 10, 2016, Joel and Mary Rich's son, Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, was murdered in what police believed was a botched robbery.
- Shortly after, a conspiracy theory emerged online alleging Seth Rich was assassinated for leaking DNC emails to WikiLeaks, causing the Riches significant distress.
- The Riches issued a public statement asking people to refrain from pushing the harmful and unproven theories about their son's murder.
- In late 2016 and early 2017, Fox News commentator Ed Butowsky and reporter Malia Zimmerman befriended the Riches and recruited Rod Wheeler, a private investigator and Fox News contributor, to help them publicize the conspiracy theory.
- Butowsky persuaded the Riches to hire Wheeler as their private investigator, offering to pay for the service and instructing Wheeler to conceal his connections to Zimmerman and Fox News.
- The Riches signed an engagement agreement with Wheeler that expressly prohibited him from speaking to the media or releasing any information about the investigation without their written permission, a term known to the defendants.
- On May 10, 2017, Butowsky and Zimmerman falsely informed Wheeler that they had an FBI source confirming Seth Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks.
- On May 16, 2017, Fox News published articles authored by Zimmerman that used Wheeler, identified as the family's investigator, as a named source to lend credibility to the false claim that Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks.
Procedural Posture:
- Joel and Mary Rich filed a complaint based on diversity jurisdiction against Fox News Network, LLC, Malia Zimmerman, and Ed Butowsky in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The complaint alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract, and negligent supervision.
- The defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all of the Riches' claims with prejudice.
- Joel and Mary Rich, as Plaintiffs-Appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. 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 a complaint plausibly state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with contract by alleging that news network employees engaged in a deliberate and malicious campaign to exploit a grieving family, knowing of their particular susceptibility to emotional harm, in order to publish a knowingly false story?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi
Yes. The complaint plausibly states claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and tortious interference with contract. For the IIED claim, the defendants' alleged conduct, viewed in its totality, amounted to a deliberate and malicious 'campaign of emotional torture' sufficient to constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. The court rejected the lower court's analysis of each act in isolation, stating that the proper inquiry is whether the actions together form a malicious campaign. Furthermore, the defendants' knowledge of the Riches' peculiar susceptibility to emotional distress as grieving parents, evidenced by their public statements and private conversations, transforms their conduct into something that is plausibly heartless, flagrant, and outrageous. The court also held that the IIED claim is distinct from a defamation claim concerning their deceased son, as it arises from conduct targeted directly at the Riches. Regarding the tortious interference claim, the complaint sufficiently pleads but-for causation, damages, and intentional procurement of breach without justification, as any 'news gathering' privilege is overcome by the allegations of malice.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'extreme and outrageous' standard for an IIED claim can be met by a pattern of conduct constituting a malicious campaign, rather than requiring a single, shocking act. It significantly reinforces the principle that a defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's particular vulnerability is a critical factor in the outrageousness analysis. The ruling provides a viable path for plaintiffs who are harmed by the tortious conduct used to create a knowingly false news story, even when they are not the direct subjects of the defamatory statements. This precedent may impact how news organizations approach sensitive subjects, especially when dealing with victims of tragedy who are susceptible to emotional harm.
