Sprague, R. v. Porter, J. ( 2014 )

J-A15016-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RICHARD A. SPRAGUE, ESQUIRE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JILL PORTER, PHILADELPHIA
NEWSPAPERS, LLC, PHILLY ONLINE, LLC,
PMH ACQUISITION, LLC, PHILADELPHIA
MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC
Appellees No. 1649 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered May 17, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 2930 January Term, 2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2014
Richard A. Sprague, Esquire, appeals from the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Jill Porter, Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Philly Online, LLC, PHM
Acquisition, LLC and Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC. We affirm based on the
thorough opinion of the Honorable Lisa M. Rau.
The trial court set forth the underlying facts of this case as follows:
Philadelphia Attorney Richard A. Sprague (Appellant) represented
his friend State Senator Vincent J. Fumo during a federal
investigation and prosecution for public corruption and obstruction
of justice. Senator Fumo was charged, among other things, with
deleting emails and wiping computer hard drives during the federal
investigation. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Sprague called a press
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15016-14
lawyer not me
emails during the federal investigation. Sometime later, Mr.
onal relationship with Senator
Fumo changed and they parted ways. In February 2009, Mr.
trial. Mr. Sprague testified that notwithstanding what he said at
the press conference two years earlier, he had never believed
Philadelphia Daily News reporter Jill Porter had been covering
the public corruption trial in her weekly column from the beginning.
She attended the earlier press conference and the trial. Two days
eek. But he acknowledged
deleting the emails. She then quoted his recent trial testimony
when he admitted that he had never believed the story he told
adelphia
on behalf of a client?
See Ct. Ex. A, Jill Porter, The law, duty, and truth, PHILA. DAILY
NEWS
sure seems underhanded and immoral to me See id. (emphasis
provided).
In response, Mr. Sprague filed suit for defamation and false-light
invasion of privacy against Ms. Porter and the Daily News
(Appellees) that published the column on January 26, 2010. After
discovery was complete, the Appellees moved for summary
judgment and argued that Mr. Sprague failed to produce the legally
required evidence that the published statements were false or not
opinion, that they were made with malice, and that he suffered any
-2-
J-A15016-14
damages. On May 17, 2013, this [c]ourt granted summary
judgment on all four grounds because there was not sufficient
evidence under the law to proceed to trial.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/13, at 1-3.
This timely appeal followed, in which Sprague raises the following issues
for our review:
1. Should summary judgment be denied in the face of disputed
defamatory statements and, if not, is there sufficient evidence
statements regarding the plaintiff were false?
2.
state of mind is in dispute and there is ample evidence to
support a finding defendants published their defamatory
falsehoods with a reckless disregard for the truth?
3. Is a jury permitted to award damages to a libel plaintiff for loss
of reputation and emotional anguish based upon evidence of the
circulation and content of the defamatory publication and the
emotional anguish it caused the plaintiff?
4. Where the
the plaintiff with respect to his public conduct, may a jury
In Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., 926 A.2d 899 (Pa. 2007),
our Supreme Court explained the law regarding public figure defamation:1
In Pennsylvania, the Uniform Single Publication Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§
8341-8345, sets forth the elements of a prima facie case in a
defamation action. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove:
(1) The defamatory character of the communication.
____________________________________________
1
Sprague admitted that for purposes of this litigation he is a public figure See
ary Judgment,
¶ 18.
-3-
J-A15016-14
(2) Its publication by the defendant.
(3) Its application to the plaintiff.
(4) The understanding by the recipient of its defamatory
meaning.
(5) The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to
be applied to the plaintiff.
(6) Special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its
publication.
(7) Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.
42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). In turn, when a prima facie case of
defamation is properly raised, the defendant may rebut by proving:
(1) The truth of the defamatory communication.
(2) The privileged character of the occasion on which it
was published.
(3) The character of the subject matter of defamatory
comment as of public concern.
Id. at § 8343(b). Case law further informs us that it if the plaintiff
is a public figure he or she must prove that the defendant
knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard
to its falsity. Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, 439 A.2d
652, 659 (Pa. 1981) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964).
Weaver, supra at 903.
-moving party has
which he bears the burden of proof such that a jury could return a verdict in
Ertel v. Patriot News Co., 674 A.2d 1038, 1042 (Pa. 1996).
Here, the trial court properly concluded that Sprague failed to establish: (1)
the allegedly defamatory statements were not opinion; (2) the statements
were false; by clear and convincing evidence; (3) the article was published
with malice; and (4) entitlement to damages. Failure to establish any one of
-4-
J-A15016-14
See Trial Court
Opinion, 11/1/13, at 16.
-
reasoned opinion. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Rau
decision in the event of further proceedings.
Order affirmed.
PANELLA, J., files a Dissenting Memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/26/2014
-5-