Schindler v. Seiler
474 F.3d 1008 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's testimony recounting what a third party told them the defendant said is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove that the defendant actually made the alleged defamatory statement.
Facts:
- Joseph Seiler, an employee of Synthes Spine Company, allegedly told Dr. Kerry White that another doctor, Dr. Jay J. Schindler, was a 'bad doctor' who had 'paralyzed four patients.'
- Dr. White then allegedly repeated Seiler's statement to Dr. Schindler, telling him, 'Joe Seiler is downstairs right now and just told me that you paralyzed four patients.'
- Seiler denied making the specific statement about paralyzed patients to Dr. White, testifying only that he told Dr. White he had overheard others making derogatory remarks about Dr. Schindler.
- Dr. White also denied that Seiler told him Dr. Schindler had paralyzed four patients or was a bad doctor.
- The only evidence Dr. Schindler offered to prove Seiler made the defamatory statement was his own testimony about what Dr. White told him.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Jay J. Schindler filed a defamation lawsuit against Joseph Seiler and Synthes Spine Company, L.P. in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Schindler had no admissible evidence to support his claim.
- The district court (the trial court) found that Dr. Schindler's only evidence was his own testimony about Dr. White's statement, which it ruled was inadmissible hearsay.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Dr. Schindler, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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:
Is a plaintiff's testimony, which recounts an out-of-court statement made by a third party about what the defendant allegedly said, admissible evidence to prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Circuit Judge
No. A plaintiff's testimony about what a third party told them the defendant said is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the defendant made the statement. The court reasoned that Dr. Schindler's testimony is a classic example of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). He is offering the out-of-court statement of Dr. White ('Joe Seiler... just told me that you paralyzed four patients') to prove the truth of the matter asserted within that statement—namely, that Seiler actually spoke those defamatory words to Dr. White. This is different from the 'verbal acts' doctrine, where the words themselves have legal significance regardless of their truth. Here, the entire point of the testimony is to establish the fact that Seiler uttered the words, which is the foundational element of the defamation claim. The court also rejected Dr. Schindler's arguments that the testimony fell under hearsay exceptions. It failed the 'present sense impression' exception because Dr. Schindler could not prove the statement was made immediately after the event and evidence suggested it was a 'calculated narration' by Dr. White. It also failed the 'unavailable witness' exception because Dr. White was available and did testify.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental prohibition against hearsay, particularly in defamation litigation where the exact words spoken are the central issue. It clarifies that a plaintiff cannot survive a summary judgment motion by simply testifying about what a third-party witness allegedly told them, especially when that witness denies the account. The decision underscores the necessity for direct, admissible evidence—such as testimony from a person who personally heard the defamatory statement—to prove the element of publication. This raises the evidentiary bar for defamation plaintiffs and protects defendants from claims based on layered, uncorroborated accounts.
Unlock the full brief for Schindler v. Seiler