Clark v. E! Entm't Television, LLC, 3:13-cv-00058

COREY D. CLARK, Plaintiff, v. E! ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, LLC, Defendant.

NO. 3:13-cv-00058

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

March 26, 2018

JUDGE CAMPBELL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 128). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 151), and Defendant has replied. (Doc. No. 158). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Corey Clark, a former contestant on American Idol, filed this diversity action for libel and false light invasion of privacy against Defendant E! Entertainment Television, LLC, and Fox Broadcasting Company based on E!'s January 27, 2012 airing of a program titled "E! True Hollywood Story: Paula Abdul" (the Program).¹ Specifically, Plaintiff alleges in his false light claim that the Program conveys the message that "Clark did not have any meaningful relationship with Abdul and that Clark was dishonest when he disclosed the nature of the relationship on ABC News." (Doc. No. 17 at ¶ 314). Both Defendant and Fox filed motions to dismiss, and on October 10, 2014, the Court granted Fox's motion in full and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Clark'sdefamation claims. (Doc. No. 101). Thus, only a claim of false light invasion of privacy against E! Entertainment remains.

Plaintiff competed on Season Two of American Idol, which aired in 2003.² (Deposition I of Corey Clark ("Clark Dep. I") at 54:23-55:15). Paula Abdul appeared on the show as one of the three judges. (Doc. No. 153 at 4). During the 2003 season, Plaintiff was disqualified following the publication of an article on TheSmokingGun.com concerning his arrest in Topeka, Kansas on October 12, 2002. (Doc. No. 17 at 36). Sometime after Plaintiff's ouster from the contest, he publicly proclaimed that Ms. Abdul had been his mentor on the show, that the two had become romantically involved, and that he had an affair with Ms. Abdul while still a contestant on American Idol. (Doc. No. 100 at 7).

In 2005, while Plaintiff was working on an album release and a book regarding his experience on American Idol, (Doc. No. 153 at 5), the Globe and the New York Post reported on Clark's allegation that he had an affair with Ms. Abdul in 2003 while a participant on American Idol. (Clark Dep. I at 138:18 - 139:7). Many other publications and news outlets reported on Plaintiff's allegations, and ABC's Primetime devoted an episode to American Idol and Plaintiff's allegations of his affair. (Doc. No. 153 at 6). Plaintiff's allegations were also the subject of a sketch on NBC's Saturday Night Live in which Ms. Abdul appeared. SNL made fun of Plaintiff as being an opportunist, and Plaintiff testified that he thought the sketch was funny, was not offensive, and indicated that he had "arrived." (Id.). Clark agrees that in 2005, the notion of him being an opportunist who was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame was widely reported in the media. (Doc. No. 153 at 6).

Ms. Abdul's E! True Hollywood Story

The television series E! True Hollywood Story ("E! THS") is a documentary series that focuses on celebrities, movies, television programs, and public figures. (Doc. No. 153 at 2). In 2005, E! THS updated the Program that focused on Ms. Abdul's life and career to include the public controversy created by Plaintiff's allegations; that episode was broadcast again, with the last airing on or about January 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 100 at 8). As summarized previously by the Court in its October 10, 2014 order, the Program described Plaintiff's participation on American Idol, his ascension to becoming a finalist, and his disqualification after TheSmokingGun.com report. (Id. at 8-9). The program included an interview with an American Idol producer who explained that Plaintiff was disqualified from the show because he did not disclose on a background questionnaire that he had been arrested. (Id. at 9). The Program stated that Plaintiff was arrested, was later cleared of the charges, and that Plaintiff did not disclose the arrest on the questionnaire because he was cleared of the charges. (Id.).

The Program also recounted Plaintiff's later claims that he had an affair with Ms. Abdul. (Id.). A voiceover states that Ms. Abdul initially made no public statement, but later claimed Plaintiff's allegations were lies. (Id.). The Program went on to describe media and fan reactions to the story, and reports that an investigation by independent counsel hired by Fox found that Plaintiff's claims regarding the alleged affair were unsubstantiated. (Id.). The Program featured journalist John Quinones of ABC's Primetime speaking at length on camera about the allegations Clark made on Primetime and the fact that ABC stood by its report of Clark's allegations. (Doc. No. 153 at 9). The Program ends the segment discussing Plaintiff's allegations of an affair with a statement by USA Today's Elysa Gardner stating, "At the end of the day maybe only the two of them know what really happened." (Id. at 11).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court views the facts in the light most favorable for the nonmoving party, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 242 (6th Cir. 2015); Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 2003). Claims that a fact is, or is not, in genuine dispute must be supported by the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). However, a "mere 'scintilla of evidence' within the record that militates against the overwhelming weight of contradictory corroboration does not create a genuine issue of fact." Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). If a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party, summary judgment should be granted. Slusher v. Shelbyville Hosp. Corp., 805 F.3d 211, 215 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Miller v. Sanilac Cty., 606 F.3d 240, 247 (6th Cir. 2010)).

In Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P., 238 S.W.3d 270, 283 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007), the Tennessee Court of Appeals explained that "summary judgments are particularly well-suited for false light and libel claims" because whether the plaintiff is a public figure, and whether he or she has come forward with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was acting with actual malice are questions of law. Thus, where the actual malice standard applies, the "burden is upon plaintiff to show with 'convincing clarity' the facts which make up the 'actual malice.'" Id. (quoting Trigg v. Lakeway Publishers, Inc., 720 S.W.2d 69, 75 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)).

III. ANALYSIS

The Tennessee Supreme Court recognized the tort of false light invasion of privacy in 2001, largely adopting the Restatement's definition of the tort, and permitting liability where a defendant"gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light" such that (1) "the false light into which the other is placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person" and (2) "the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed." West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640, 643-44 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977)). "Actual malice" is the appropriate standard for false light claims when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, or when the claim is asserted by a private individual about a matter of public concern. Id. at 647. This means that a plaintiff whose claim falls within one of these categories may not recover damages under a false light invasion of privacy claim unless the statement was made with knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Id.

Three categories of public figures exist: (1) voluntary limited purpose public figures, which are persons who have voluntarily thrust themselves to the forefront of a particular public controversy so that they may influence the issues involved; (2) all-purpose public figures, which are persons who have such pervasive notoriety or fame that they are public figures for all purposes; and (3) involuntary public figures, which are persons who become public figures through no purposeful action of their own. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 345, 351 (1974). Plaintiff concedes that he is "at least" a limited purpose public figure (Doc. No. 151 at 11).

Because Plaintiff is a public figure, his false light claim against Defendant is construed under the actual malice standard set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The actual malice standard is a subjective one in which the ultimate question is whether the defendant made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP, 759 F.3d 522, 531 (6th Cir. 2014).A statement is made with reckless disregard for the truth when a defendant makes the statement "with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity" or has "entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication." Id. (quoting Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989)). A "failure to investigate, alone, will not support a finding of actual malice, but the 'purposeful avoidance of the truth' may do so." Cobb v. Time, Inc, 278 F.3d 629, 637 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Harte-Hanks, 491 U.S. at 692). Where a defendant is "reporting a third party's allegations, the standard of reckless disregard may be met where 'there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the...