Jenni Rivera Enters. v. Latin World Entm’t Holdings, Inc., No B279739 (D2d7, Jun. 29, 2019)
I’m surprised this doesn’t come up more often. Plaintiff is the estate of a Mexican-American singer who died in a plane crash. It alleges that some television Producers and a TV Network tortiously interfered with an NDA entered by Singer’s manager, by paying for information regarding Signer’s life story. The Producers and the Network claim the case is a SLAPP. The trial court denied the motions.
On appeal nobody contests that the claims meet the first element of the anti-SLAPP analysis, because the production of a television program about a dead celebrity is conduct in furtherance of free speech. The Court of Appeal, however, reverses as to the Producers but affirms as to the Network. As to the Producers, the Court finds there was enough evidence to make out a prima facie claim of tortious interference. In particular, there was substantial, albeit disputed, evidence that Producers were aware of the NDA when singed Manager up for a production deal.
But the Court finds that the Network was protected by the First Amendment news-gathering privilege. Generally, in gathering news, reporters are not allowed to violate the law or commit crimes. They can’t, for instance, hack computers or break into offices. But the First Amendment protects ordinary news gathering, which includes asking questions to persons who might be under some contractual or other obligations of confidentiality. Which suggests, at least, that a news organization can’t be held liable for inducing a breach of a NDA in connection with accurately gathering and reporting the news.
Although the Court suggests that result, it ultimately holds it doesn’t need to sweep so broadly. There wasn’t any evidence that the Network was aware of the NDA at the time it agreed to run the program. There was some evidence that it subsequently learned but continued to pay license fees to Producers and to promote Manager’s involvement. But even if that were enough to make out a prima facie claim for tortious interference, that conduct would not be sufficiently wrongful or unlawful to overcome the privilege.
Reversed in part.
I’m surprised this doesn’t come up more often. Plaintiff is the estate of a Mexican-American singer who died in a plane crash. It alleges that some television Producers and a TV Network tortiously interfered with an NDA entered by Singer’s manager, by paying for information regarding Signer’s life story. The Producers and the Network claim the case is a SLAPP. The trial court denied the motions.
On appeal nobody contests that the claims meet the first element of the anti-SLAPP analysis, because the production of a television program about a dead celebrity is conduct in furtherance of free speech. The Court of Appeal, however, reverses as to the Producers but affirms as to the Network. As to the Producers, the Court finds there was enough evidence to make out a prima facie claim of tortious interference. In particular, there was substantial, albeit disputed, evidence that Producers were aware of the NDA when singed Manager up for a production deal.
But the Court finds that the Network was protected by the First Amendment news-gathering privilege. Generally, in gathering news, reporters are not allowed to violate the law or commit crimes. They can’t, for instance, hack computers or break into offices. But the First Amendment protects ordinary news gathering, which includes asking questions to persons who might be under some contractual or other obligations of confidentiality. Which suggests, at least, that a news organization can’t be held liable for inducing a breach of a NDA in connection with accurately gathering and reporting the news.
Although the Court suggests that result, it ultimately holds it doesn’t need to sweep so broadly. There wasn’t any evidence that the Network was aware of the NDA at the time it agreed to run the program. There was some evidence that it subsequently learned but continued to pay license fees to Producers and to promote Manager’s involvement. But even if that were enough to make out a prima facie claim for tortious interference, that conduct would not be sufficiently wrongful or unlawful to overcome the privilege.
Reversed in part.