Shkelzen Berisha v. Guy Lawson
19-10315 (11th Cir. 2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public figure plaintiff in a defamation case fails to show actual malice when the author relied on multiple, corroborating sources—including prior reputable news reports—even if those sources have potential credibility issues. Minor factual inaccuracies do not constitute actual malice so long as the 'gist or sting' of the publication is substantially true and supported by the sources.
Facts:
- In the early 2000s, Efraim Diveroli, David Packouz, and Alex Podrizki operated AEY, Inc., an arms-dealing company that won a nearly $300 million U.S. government contract to supply ammunition to Afghan forces.
- AEY sourced ammunition from Albania and hired Albanian businessman Kosta Trebicka to repackage it to conceal its Chinese origin, which was prohibited by the contract.
- According to Guy Lawson's book 'Arms and the Dudes', Diveroli and Podrizki later met with Albanian officials to renegotiate the deal, cutting Trebicka out in favor of a company run by Mihail Delijorgji.
- The book alleges that Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania's prime minister, was silently present at this meeting, which Diveroli later described as a meeting with the 'Albanian mafia.'
- After being removed from the deal, Trebicka recorded a phone call in which Diveroli stated that the corruption 'went up higher, to the prime minister, to his son.'
- Prior to the book's publication, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and other media outlets had published reports on the arms scandal, quoting Diveroli's allegations and implicating Berisha.
- In response to these public accusations, Berisha met with Trebicka, who subsequently retracted his statements to the media, and Berisha also issued a statement encouraging the press to investigate the matter fully.
- In 2015, Guy Lawson published 'Arms and the Dudes,' which recounted Berisha's alleged presence at the meeting and his connection to the criminal scheme, drawing from interviews with the 'dudes' and prior public reports.
Procedural Posture:
- Shkelzen Berisha sued Guy Lawson, Alexander Podrizki, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and others for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- During discovery, the magistrate judge denied Berisha's motion to compel production of communications between Lawson and the publisher's attorneys, deeming them privileged.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Berisha was a limited-purpose public figure who failed to present sufficient evidence of actual malice.
- Berisha (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 an author act with actual malice when publishing defamatory statements about a limited-purpose public figure's involvement in a criminal enterprise, where the author relied on numerous, corroborating sources that included previously published news reports, despite the sources having known credibility problems?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge
No, an author does not act with actual malice under these circumstances. To prevail, a public figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the publisher acted with actual malice, meaning they published a statement with knowledge of its falsity or with serious doubts as to its truth. The court first affirmed that Berisha is a limited-purpose public figure because he was a well-known individual who voluntarily thrust himself into the public controversy surrounding the arms deal by meeting with a key figure and issuing statements to the press. Given his status, Berisha had to meet the high standard of proving actual malice. The court found he failed to do so because Lawson did not rely solely on the 'dudes,' who had credibility problems as convicted fraudsters. Instead, Lawson's account was corroborated by numerous independent sources, including multiple New York Times articles, an Al Jazeera documentary, leaked diplomatic cables, and other interviews. Reliance on a multitude of previously published reports from reputable sources is sufficient to defeat a claim of actual malice. Minor inaccuracies alleged by Berisha, such as who identified him at the meeting, were immaterial because they did not alter the defamatory 'gist or sting' of the central allegations, which were well-sourced.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable burden of proof on public figures in defamation lawsuits under the 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. It provides significant protection for authors and journalists, clarifying that reliance on multiple, corroborating sources—even those with potential biases or credibility issues—is a strong defense against claims of reckless disregard for the truth. The ruling underscores that the focus of the actual malice inquiry is the author's subjective state of mind, which is difficult to challenge when a story is supported by a variety of sources. This precedent makes it harder for public figures to succeed in defamation cases by merely attacking the character of sources, so long as the publisher's belief in the story's core accuracy is buttressed by corroboration from other reports.
