Holtrey v. Wiedeman

221 N.E.3d 284

Troy E. HOLTREY, et al., Appellees,

v.Douglas J. WIEDEMAN, Appellant.

CASE NO. CA2023-01-011

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren County.

July 17, 2023

Smith, Meier & Webb, LPA, and John D. Smith, Andrew P. Meier, Springboro and Chase T. Kirby, for appellees.

Roetzel & Andress, LPA, and Nicholas P. Resetar, Akron, for appellant.

OPINION

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Douglas J. Wiedeman, appeals the judgment issued by the Warren County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him liable for defaming appellee, Troy E. Holtrey, a veteran teacher with over 30 years of teaching experience and the current head boys’ tennis coach at Springboro High School located in Springboro, Warren County, Ohio. Wiedeman also appeals the trial court's decision enjoining him from continuing to defame Holtrey in the same manner for which the jury had found him liable. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On August 5, 2020, Holtrey filed a complaint against Wiedeman alleging four causes of action. One of those causes of action was a claim of defamation. To support this claim, Holtrey alleged Wiedeman had defamed him, and prevented him from being hired as the head coach of Springboro High School's varsity boys’ basketball team for the 2020-2021 school year, by falsely accusing him of engaging in "criminal and/or improper conduct" that involved the "stealing and/or misappropriating of money" in connection with his prior roles as the school's varsity boys’ basketball coach and/or the athletic director between the years 1991 to 2012.¹ Holtrey also requested in a separate cause of action the trial court to permanently enjoin Wiedeman from making any similar defamatory statements about him in the future. The other two causes of action set forth within Holtrey's complaint, false light invasion of privacy and loss of consortium, are not relevant to this appeal and will therefore not be discussed further within this opinion.

{¶ 3} On August 31, 2022, Wiedeman moved the trial court for summary judgment on Holtrey's defamation claim. Six weeks later, on October 14, 2022, the trial court issued a decision denying Wiedeman's motion for summary judgment upon finding genuine issues of material fact remained. In so doing, the trial court determined that, as a matter of law, Holtrey had "properly alleged" an actionable claim of defamation per se against Wiedeman based on Wiedeman's statements that Holtrey was "at the center" of an earlier embezzlement scandal involving the Springboro School District's athletic boosters. This was in addition to Wiedeman's statements that Holtrey was a "crook," and that Holtrey may have stolen money from the Springboro School District's concession stands in his role as the site manager for Springboro High School's football and volleyball games.² The trial court also determined that, as a matter of law, Holtrey should be classified as a "private person" for purposes of bringing his defamation claim against Wiedeman. This is in addition to the trial court finding, as a matter of law, that Wiedeman's statements about Holtrey were not subject to a qualified privilege.

{¶ 4} On November 7, 8, and 9, 2022, a three-day jury trial was held on Holtrey's defamation claim. During that trial, the jury heard testimony from a number of witnesses. This included testimony from the three individuals to whom Wiedeman had allegedly defamed Holtrey: a member of the Springboro Schools’ Board of Education, Lisa Babb, and two former players who had played on the Springboro High School's varsity boys’ basketball team, Zach Johnson and Seth Doliboa. Upon the conclusion of that three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in Holtrey's favor, awarding him with $120 in compensatory damages.

{¶ 5} On November 14, 2022, the trial court issued a decision granting Holtrey's request for a permanent injunction against Wiedeman. In so doing, the trial court determined that, although Holtrey's request for such an injunction against Wiedeman would serve as a prior restraint on Wiedeman's speech:

a judicial determination has now been made that Wiedeman's statements regarding Holtrey's alleged engagement in criminal or improper conduct involving the stealing or misappropriating of money during his career as head basketball coach or athletic director were defamatory.

The trial court therefore determined that "a limited injunctive remedy under closely defined procedural safeguards against statements made of the same nature as were involved in this case is permissible."

{¶ 6} On December 22, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry memorializing the jury's verdict and the nominal $120 award of compensatory damages to Holtrey. The trial court's entry also set forth its decision to grant Holtrey's request for a permanent injunction against Wiedeman. Specifically, as it relates to that injunction, the trial court forever enjoined Wiedeman as follows:

Wiedeman is ENJOINED from publicizing any statements regarding [Holtrey] engaging in any criminal or improper conduct involving the stealing or misappropriating of any money during his career as head coach of the Springboro Boys’ Basketball team or Athletic Director with the Springboro School District from 1991 to 2012.

{¶ 7} On January 20, 2023, Wiedeman filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument was held before this court on June 5, 2023. Wiedeman's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Wiedeman has raised two assignments of error for review.

Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 8} THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY DENIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Wiedeman argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment as it related to the three fundamental issues presented in this case. Those three issues being whether, as a matter of law: (1) Holtrey was a "private person" for purposes of bringing his defamation claim against Wiedeman; (2) whether Wiedeman's statements about Holtrey presented an actionable defamation claim; and (3) whether Wiedeman's statements about Holtrey were subject to a qualified privilege. After setting forth the proper summary judgment standard of review, we will address each of these three issues in turn.

Summary Judgment Standard of Review

{¶ 10} "Summary judgment is a procedural device used to terminate litigation when there are no issues in a case requiring a formal trial." Franchas Holdings, L.L.C. v. Dameron , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-09-073, 2016-Ohio-878, 2016 WL 868933, ¶ 16. " Civ.R. 56 sets forth the summary judgment standard." State ex rel. Becker v. Faris , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-10-058, 2021-Ohio-1127, 2021 WL 1248282, ¶ 14. "Pursuant to that rule, a court may grant summary judgment only when (1) there is no genuine issue of any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) the evidence submitted can only lead reasonable minds to a conclusion that is adverse to the nonmoving party." Spitzer v. Frish's Restaurants, Inc. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-12-128, 2021-Ohio-1913, 2021 WL 2309629, ¶ 6. "An issue is genuine only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party." Abduhl v. Orange Village , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82203, 2003-Ohio-4662, 2003 WL 22053455, ¶ 14.

{¶ 11} "In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party." Assured Admin., L.L.C. v. Young , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-04-039, 2019-Ohio-3953, 2019 WL 4745254, ¶ 14, citing Vanderbilt v. Pier 27, L.L.C. , 12th Dist. Butler, 2013-Ohio-5205, 2 N.E.3d 966, ¶ 8. Therefore, when taken all together, summary judgment is proper only when "there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can only come to a conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party, construing the evidence most strongly in that party's favor." Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. JK & R Express, L.L.C. , 12th Dist. Clermont, 2022-Ohio-3969, 201 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 17.

{¶ 12} This court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a summary judgment motion under a de novo standard. Faith Lawley, L.L.C. v. McKay , 12th Dist. Warren, 2021-Ohio-2156, 175 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 26. This court also reviews a trial court's decision to deny a summary judgment motion under a de novo standard. Hellmuth v. Hood , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-07-154, 2019-Ohio-4825, 2019 WL 6311170, ¶ 17. A de novo standard of review requires this court to use the same standard that the trial court should have used. Morris v. Dobbins Nursing Home , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2010-12-102, 2011-Ohio-3014, 2011 WL 2449008, ¶ 14. Generally, when an error is found in a trial court's decision granting a summary judgment motion, the trial court's decision is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See, e.g., Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care , 12th Dist. Fayette, 2017-Ohio-4370, 93 N.E.3d 78, ¶ 41.

{¶ 13} However, "any error in denying a summary judgment motion is rendered moot or harmless if the motion is denied due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact, and a subsequent trial results in a verdict in favor of the party who did not move for summary judgment." Smith v. Ironwood , 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2021-07-065 and CA2021-08-068, 2022-Ohio-875, 2022 WL 829823, ¶ 17. The same does not hold true in circumstances where the denial of the motion for summary judgment presents a purely legal question. Clarkwestern Dietrich Bldg. Sys., L.L.C. v. Certified Steel Stud Assn., Inc. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-06-113, 2017-Ohio-2713, 2017 WL 1843113, ¶ 12. "When the alleged error in the denial of summary judgment is based purely on a question of law that must be answered without regard to issues of fact, the denial of summary judgment is reviewable." Id. at ¶ 13, citing The Promotion Co., Inc./Special Events...