Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc.

34 Cal.4th 679 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Gates (P) served a prison sentence of three years upon pleading guilty in 1992 to being an accessory after the fact to a murder for hire that occurred in 1988. P who was employed as the killer’s assistant manager at the time of the murder originally was charged as a co-conspirator, but the charges were later reduced. Discovery (D) are television production and transmission companies that aired an account of the crime in 2001 - more than a dozen years after the crime occurred. P filed this action, pleading causes of action for defamation and invasion of privacy. Since P was released from prison, he has a led an obscure, productive, lawful life. P alleged that D's program falsely portrayed him as being involved in a conspiracy to murder, falsely depicted him as participating in a telephone wiretap to develop evidence, and falsely suggested he was a self-confessed murderer. As for the invasion of privacy cause of action, P alleged he was damaged by 'the revelation that P pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a murder for hire plot and the airing by Ds of P's photograph.' Ds demurred to both causes of action in that P was a limited-purpose public figure and could not demonstrate that Ds had made any defamatory statements with malice. Ds also filed a special motion to strike the invasion of privacy claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court sustained without leave to amend Ds' demurrer to the defamation cause of action. On the ground that 'there is no authority which precludes civil liability for truthful publication of private facts regardless of whether the information is newsworthy,' the court overruled the demurrer to the invasion of privacy cause of action. The court also denied Ds' anti-SLAPP motion as to the invasion of privacy cause of action, concluding that P had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing thereon. Defendants appealed from the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion. (§ 425.16, subd. (j).) The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, relying primarily on Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the State of Georgia could not constitutionally sanction a television station for publishing the identity of a deceased 17-year-old rape victim whose name the station's reporter had obtained by examining public court records.