Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Thompson and Barron, Circuit Judges.
October 9, 2015
out
judgment.
this
battle-scarred
defamation
case
on
summary
corporation
of
Springfield.
Defendants
are
Chalmers
So
Discussing a train
And
finally, the last article said Pan Am's owner had "removed" Fink
"from management," though some of ANR&P's sources did not know
whether Fink had "definitely left" or whether the owner "came to
New England to administer the coup de grace," but sources did
express the hope that Fink's successor Fink's son, it turns out
"might
have
more
freedom
either
to
spend
more
money
on
(Brackets in original.)
According
motion,
dismissed
the
judge
the
complaint
Acting on the
without
prejudice,
See
Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 59798 (1st Cir. 1980) (discussing how bifurcated discovery like this
can protect a defendant's journalistic sources).
discovery
phase,
defendants
moved
for
summary
judgment,
Fed.
naturally.
R.
Civ.
P.
56(a).
Plaintiffs
opposed
the
motion,
Wrong,
lost-car comments does not mean that those comments may proceed to
trial.
defamation
inquiry
whether
the
battled-over
statements
are
fault.
least that defendants were negligent and they may need to show
that defendants acted with actual malice.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964) (holding that a public figure
suing for defamation must show that the defendant acted with actual
malice).
- 5 -
RTR Techs.,
And second, we
can affirm the ruling on any ground apparent in the record, even
one not relied on by the judge.
F.3d at 92.
Defamation
Modern defamation law is a complex mixture of commonlaw rules and constitutional doctrines.
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 132 (1st Cir. 1997).
- 6 -
But work
So off we go.
(a)
Common-Law Rules
amounting
at
least
to
negligence,
(4)
as
long
as
the
Because for-
that "[o]ne who publishes a defamatory matter" concerning a forprofit corporation can be liable "if . . . the matter tends to
prejudice [the corporation] in the conduct of its business or to
deter
others
from
dealing
with
it");
see
generally
Vahlsing
To discern
meaning, a court must draw from the context of the statement and
not interpret words "in the most negative . . . way" imaginable.
Id. (citing RST 563 cmt. d for the in-context point); see also
Veilleux v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 206 F.3d 92, 108 (1st Cir. 2000).
This "is not a question of the intent of the speaker, or author,
or
even
of
the
understanding
of
the
plaintiff,
but
of
the
The Maine
so long as the
The question is
Haynes
when,
in
fact,
she
was
only
terminated
for
two
(b)
Constitutional Doctrines
On the constitutional side, the Supreme Court reading
the First Amendment (made binding on the states through the
Fourteenth) "has hedged about defamation suits" with lots of
"safeguards designed to protect a vigorous market in ideas and
opinions."
Cir. 1995) (Posner, C.J.); see also Gray v. St. Martin's Press,
Inc., 221 F.3d 243, 248 (1st Cir. 2000).
Which brings us to
than
implying
that
he
possesses
objectively
testable
See
- 12 -
was
"a
major
contributing
cause
of"
the
accident.
According to the report, the car's age and poor condition prevented
it from properly travelling along the track.
Before going on, we note the obvious: Burling's comments
came hard on the accident's heels, at a time when even Fink's son
conceded that Pan Am was "looking at everything" as a possible
cause, though Pan Am "d[id]n't think" the problem was trackrelated.
and
even
included
Pan
Am's
official
response
favor)
that
remarks
are
capable
of
We
explain.
it
the
anyway)
that
public
cares
deeply
about
the
safety,
Wis., Minn., & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287, 296-97
(1900).
- 17 -
But
U.S. at 776.
But this they have not done. Again, plaintiffs adamantly
insist that the derailment's true cause was a badly corroded
railcar owned by another company.
internal report that said only that the railcar was "a major
contributing cause" of the accident.
however, is any suggestion there that the car was the accident's
sole cause and that means this document is far too thin a reed
to support plaintiffs' material-falsity charge.5
See generally
Tobin v. Fed. Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448, 452 (1st Cir. 2014)
conclusions
cannot
block
summary
judgment).
plaintiffs
point
to
nothing
in
the
summary-judgment
more
precise
explanation
of
the
cause.
Cf.
generally
An
Pan
Am's
vice
president
of
transportation.
Pertinently,
Pan Am's
New
Hampshire
Department
of
Transportation
("NHDOT,"
for
of
NHDOT's
circumstances,
the
STB
denied
the
request
for
Then came
a week.
He believed that to serve major
customers Blue Seal and Ciment Quebec,
[Springfield] had to switch at least three
times a week, which is "what I provided before
I left."
Plaintiffs do not argue that this passage is defamatory
because Pan Am actually stationed a crew in Concord, five days a
week.
(Emphasis ours.)
that for a second an authorized Pan Am honcho told the STB under
- 23 -
Yet
So
its
charges too.
chlorine-delivery
prices,
adding
special
handling
See
Oxford
English
Dictionary
Online,
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12057 (last visited Sept. 9, 2015).
- 24 -
article.
After
plaintiffs
filed
this
lawsuit,
Hardenbergh
contacted the sender and got a response from the sender's lawyer
saying the car "lost" for over 60 days "was not a TIH car."
Defendants then published a clarification explaining that the
source "was not referring to lost TIH cars."
Plaintiffs claim defendants defamed them by telling
readers that they consistently lose cars carrying TIH, including
one car for over 60 days a charge, defendants add, that is flatout false.
assuming that argument does not carry the day, they should still
win because the gist of the sentence is true.
Federal law
Federal law
materials]."
See
49
C.F.R.
1580.103(b).
And
defendants do not deny that their readers readily know what a big
deal it is for a rail carrier to act like a scofflaw when it comes
to hazardous materials.
According
Security
Administration
routinely
audit
law.
Yet
no
agency,
he
stressed,
has
ever
accused
10
lost
temporarily).
railcars
carrying
hazardous
materials,
even
juror could find that a more precise explication of the TIH issue
would have improved plaintiffs' public reputation meaning we
must vacate the grant of summary judgment on this article.
Fink's Departure
Up until 2006, Fink was both president and CEO of Pan Am
and president and CEO of the Pan Am group of railroad entities
(the "Pan Am group," for easy reading). That year, at his request,
his son became president of the Pan Am group, though Fink stayed
on as president and CEO of Pan Am and CEO of the Pan Am group.
Unfortunately, father and son did not share the same
operational philosophy.
take
Am's
back
total
control
of
Pan
railroad
operations
or
alone the ones sitting in the Concord Yard. Nor does it state
that an agency actually cited plaintiffs for losing cars. Again,
defendants might perhaps pursue these Dearness-based arguments in
a pretrial motion or before a jury, if a trial is in the offing.
- 28 -
in March 2011:
Subject to your acceptance of the conditions
proposed below regarding severance, this
letter is submitted to confirm the resignation
of my employment, effective at the close of
business today, from all positions held with
Pan Am Systems, Inc., and its subsidiary
companies, including my positions as an
officer and director of those companies. With
regard to severance compensation I would agree
to resign under the following conditions:
[conditions redacted]
A few days later, defendants published an article about
Fink's departure.
started out this way (FYI the article uses "Fink pere" to refer
to defendant Fink (David Andrew Fink) and "Fink fils" to refer to
defendant Fink's son11):
9 March, Nashua, NHNorth Billerica MA. PAN
AM OWNER TIM MELLON REMOVED DAVE FINK PERE
from management of the company, according to
four separate sources: one MBTA, one union,
one Maine source, and one from other railroad
management in New England. Sources differ on
what precipitated the action, whether Fink is
formally removed or is only on a "leave of
absence", and whether Mellon came to New
England to administer the coup de grace or did
it by telephone, but all agree that David
Andrew Fink, the head of Pam Am Systems, is no
longer in charge. . . .
11
"Pere" means "father" and "fils" means "son." See Oxford English
Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/140661 (last
visited Sept. 9, 2015); Oxford English Dictionary Online,
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/70268 (last visited Sept. 9, 2015).
- 29 -
"One source," the article added, stated that "'[t]he old man will
still run things.'
has definitely left," the article said, wrapping up, then some
sources "thought that young Fink might have more freedom either to
spend more money on railroading, or put the existing money into
different [and one would hope more productive] places."
(Brackets
in original.)
The parties fight hard over whether this article is
capable
of
conveying
defamatory
meaning
and
whether
the
As plaintiffs
tell it, one can easily infer given quotes like "removed . . .
from
management,"
productive[ly]"
reasons.
"coup
de
grace,"
that
Mellon
and
removed
spending
Fink
for
money
"more
performance
And
the article communicates the message that Mellon removed Fink for
performance reasons and that such a message may be defamatory,
defendants cannot be liable because (so far as the summary-judgment
record shows) the disputed statements relate to public concerns
and are not false in any material sense.
Starting
with
the
public-concern
issue,
despite
We
say that because the article talked about how his leaving might
cause Pan Am "either to spend more money on railroading, or put
the
existing
money
productive] places."
into
different
[and
one
would
hope
more
was a no-go, given their different views on how best to run the
business.
suggests falsity, plaintiffs identify nothing in the summaryjudgment record showing their reputations would be changed for the
better by a more fulsome account of Fink's leaving.
Cf. generally
So we
12
See
Oxford
English
Dictionary
Online,
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/43112 (last visited Sept. 9, 2015)
- 32 -
Final Words
Our work over, we reverse the grant of summary judgment
on the TIH article and affirm in all other respects.
shall bear their own costs.
So ordered.
- 33 -
The parties