Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

Last updated
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name'Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and Kevin D. Padrick v. Crystal Cox
DecidedJanuary 17, 2014
Case history
Prior action(s)District Court hold that Cox is denied protection under Oregon's media shield statutes and retraction statutes because she is not a journalist.
Subsequent action(s)New trial on the blog post at issue.
Holding
First Amendment negligence standard for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants and Cox as a blogger could not be held liable for defamation unless she acted negligently.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Arthur Alarcón, Milan Smith, and Andrew D. Hurwitz
Keywords
Defamation Law, Media Shield Law

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, [1] although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. [2] In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. [3] It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue. [3]

Contents

Background

Obsidian Finance Group is a financial advisory firm which was managing the bankruptcy of Summit 1031, a real estate company. Crystal Cox is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" who maintained the blogs obsidianfinancesucks.com, summit1031sucks.com, and bankruptcycorruption.com, amongst various others. On her blogs, Cox accused Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick of committing tax fraud, paying off the media and politicians, intimidating and threatening whistleblowers, and engaging in various other illegal activities in their handling of the bankruptcy. Cox repeatedly claimed that her investigations would expose Obsidian and Padrick's corruption. In response, Obsidian and Padrick brought suit against Cox for defamation, asserting that all of Cox's claims were false and damaging Padrick's reputation. [4] [5]

Procedural history

The court initially intended to dismiss the defamation claims against Cox. To establish a defamation claim, the alleged defamatory material must be asserting a fact that can be proven true or false, as opposed to merely stating an opinion. The court held that even though Cox's allegations of fraud and corruption are technically assertions of fact, they appeared on obviously biased blogs and Cox made no attempt to provide supporting evidence. The court ruled that in the context of Cox's ranting, hyperbolic blog posts, the allegations are unlikely to be taken as fact by any of her audience. As a result, the court held that Cox's right to voice her opinions was protected by the First Amendment and that her statements could not be considered defamation. [4]

However, after plaintiffs submitted additional blog posts for review, the court found one post to be more factual in tone and content than the others. The post delved into the details of Summit's bankruptcy filing and tax liability, and made specific accusations against Obsidian and Padrick for lying on tax filings and stealing money. The court allowed the defamation claim on this one particular post to move forward. [5]

A trial was held on November 29, 2011, and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Obsidian and Padrick $2.5 million in damages. [6] [7]

Opinion of the Court

After the trial, on November 30, 2011, the court issued an opinion clarifying some of its pre-trial oral rulings. [6]

Oregon's shield and retraction statutes

Cox had claimed that her allegations against Obsidian and Padrick were based on evidence from a secret source, and she refused to name her source citing media shield protection. [1] Under Oregon's media shield laws, any person involved with a "medium of communication to the public" did not have to reveal the source of their information, where "medium of communication" is defined as "including but not limited to" a list of traditional modes of media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and so on. [8] The court did not specifically decline to interpret the statutes to include bloggers as "media", rather holding that based on the facts of the case, Cox was not affiliated with any of the enumerated mediums, had no indicia of reliability as a journalist, and thus she did not qualify for the media shield laws. [6]

Additionally, the court held that even if Cox could be considered "media", she would still not qualify. Oregon's media shield does not apply in a civil defamation lawsuit, where the defendant has asserted "a defense based on the[...] source of allegedly defamatory information." [6] [8]

Cox also tried to assert immunity under Oregon's retraction statutes, which state that general damages for defamation could only be awarded if the plaintiffs had sought a retraction, which Padrick had not. The court again held that Cox did not qualify because her blogs and practices did not fall under any of the traditional modes of media specifically enumerated in the statute. [6] [9]

First Amendment issues

Cox asserted that because the plaintiffs are public figures and because she blogged about a matter of public concern, First Amendment protections are triggered. As a result, to prove defamation, actual malice on Cox's part must be shown. "Actual malice" would require that Cox had knowledge of the truth and knowingly disregarded the facts, instead of simply making a false assertion of facts on her blog. Ultimately, the court held that neither Obsidian or Padrick were public figures, stating that the Summit 1031 bankruptcy Cox blogged on was neither controversial nor newsworthy, and Cox was the only person trying to publicize the issue. As a result, actual malice did not need to be proven by the plaintiffs. [6]

Media protections to defamation

Cox also asserted that even if the plaintiffs weren't public figures, in order for the plaintiffs to claim damages, they must prove actual malice because she is a "media" outlet. Here, the court again held that Cox did not qualify as "media". In its reasoning, the court cited her lack of a journalism degree, lack of affiliation with traditional media outlets, lack of adherence to journalistic standards such as fact-checking and fair coverage, and the absence of Cox writing any original material rather than assembling the works of others. As such, the plaintiffs could seek damages without any further evidence of actual malice. [6]

Reactions and status after district court ruling

The holdings in this case re-ignited a public discussion over whether bloggers should be considered journalists and entitled to the same protections. [10] Cox suggested that this case "should matter to everyone who writes on the Internet" and that if she "[doesn't] win [her] appeal, we all lose". [1] [11] Padrick responded by saying that "the concept of media [would be] rendered worthless [...] if anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media". Padrick also pointed out the real damage done to his reputation and business by Cox, and stated his belief that he would have won the case even if Cox had been considered "media". [11] [12] [13] Subsequently, a World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration decision ordered the disputed domain names marcjohnrandazza.com, marcjrandazza.com, marcrandazza.com, marcrandazza.biz, marcrandazza.info and marcrandazza.mobi all to be transferred to Marc J. Randazza. [14]

Cox's motion for a new trial was denied. Currently, Cox is seeking to appeal the judgment, citing First Amendment grounds. Obsidian has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure. Cox is attempting to block the seizure to proceed with the appeal. [15] [16] [17]

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling

After granting Cox motion for appeal a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court issued its judgement in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) on January 17, 2014. [3]

Judgement summary and First Amendment defamation impact

Judgement summary

A court summary produced by court staff summarized the Ninth Circuit ruling as follows:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to a bankruptcy trustee on a defamation claim against an Internet blogger. The panel extended the principle held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974), that the First Amendment required only a "negligence standard for private defamation actions", is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants. The panel further held that the blog post at issue addressed a matter of public concern, and the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find the blogger liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently. The panel held that the bankruptcy trustee did not become a "public official" simply by virtue of court appointment, or by receiving compensation from the court. The panel remanded for a new trial on the blog post at issue, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the other blog posts that were deemed constitutionally protected opinions. [3]

First Amendment defamation impact

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. [3] But every United States appeals court which addressed this issue concluded [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [3] that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [3] [24] The Ninth Circuit followed this trend with its January 2014 ruling by holding that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently. [25] The court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment. [26] The court ruling is also a novelty because for the first time [27] [28] an appeals court ruled that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. [25]

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled [3] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. [25] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they're negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [26] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." [24]

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. only applied to "the institutional press." [24] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers." [24] Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones." [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's freedom of speech protections limit the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege. This privilege involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to the information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently, the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most of the 50 states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

Free Dominion was a Canadian conservative internet forum. The site used the phrase "Principled Conservativism" to describe its ideology.

In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delaware Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Delaware

The Delaware Supreme Court is the sole appellate court in the United States state of Delaware. Because Delaware is a popular haven for corporations, the Court has developed a worldwide reputation as a respected source of corporate law decisions, particularly in the area of mergers and acquisitions.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

<i>Funding Evil</i> 2003 book by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It is a book written by counterterrorism researcher Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. It was published by Bonus Books of Los Angeles, California in August 2003.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SPEECH Act</span> 2010 U.S. law limiting foreign defamation cases

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment, or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.

Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756, is a New Jersey Superior Court case in which Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, and in doing so, created a set of guidelines for determining the circumstances under which an anonymous online speaker may be unmasked. This standard has since been applied to other cases, such as Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC, Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, and The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.

<i>Doe v. Cahill</i>

Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment. While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company, the case marks the first time the Delaware Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."

<i>Krinsky v. Doe 6</i>

Krinsky v. Doe 6, was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, addressing the evidentiary standard required of plaintiffs seeking the identification of anonymous Internet posters. The case addressed defamation and the right to anonymous speech on the Internet. Plaintiff Lisa Krinsky sued Doe 6, an anonymous poster to Yahoo! message boards, for defamation. Krinsky served a subpoena to Yahoo! for Doe 6's identity. Doe 6 filed a motion to quash the subpoena, "contending that he had a First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet."

Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

<i>Martin v. Hearst Corporation</i> United States legal case

Lorraine Martin v. Hearst Corporation was a defamation case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit protecting online news sources from having to remove or modify a story chronicling a person's arrest if that arrest is later erased from the record by the government using a criminal erasure statute.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Curtis Cartier (December 6, 2011). "Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn't a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court--Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her". Seattle Weekly Blogs.
  2. ↑ "Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, and Kevin D. Padrick V. Crystal Cox" (pdf). Retrieved 2013-01-24.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arthur L. Alarcón; Milan D. Smith Jr.; Andrew D. Hurwitz (17 January 2014). "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (12-35238)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  4. 1 2 Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, CV-11-57-HZ (D. Ore.2011-07-07).
  5. 1 2 Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, CV-11-57-HZ (D. Ore.2011-08-23).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, CV-11-57-HZ (D. Ore.2011-11-30).
  7. ↑ Timothy B. Lee (December 2011). "Blogger not eligible for media shield law, hit with $2.5M judgment". Ars Technica.
  8. 1 2 "ORS §44.510-§44.540".
  9. ↑ "ORS §31.215".
  10. ↑ "Are All Bloggers Journalists?". New York Times. December 11, 2011.
  11. 1 2 Curtis Cartier (December 7, 2011). "Kevin Padrick, Defamed Attorney, Responds to Crystal Cox 'Blogger-Isn't-Journalist' Story". Seattle Weekly Blogs.
  12. ↑ David Carr (December 11, 2011). "When Truth Survives Free Speech". New York Times.
  13. ↑ Kashmir Hill (December 7, 2011). "Why An Investment Firm Was Awarded $2.5 Million After Being Defamed By Blogger". Forbes.
  14. ↑ Marc J. Randazza v. Reverend Crystal Cox, Eliot Bernstein Case No. D2012-1525 |url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1525
  15. ↑ Volokh, Eugene (11 January 2013). "May Plaintiff Cut off a Poor Defendant's Appeal, by Having the Sheriff Sell off Defendant's Right to Appeal?" . Retrieved January 11, 2013.
  16. ↑ Volokh, Eugene. "Cox's Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order" (PDF). Retrieved January 11, 2013.
  17. ↑ "Obsidian's Response to Cox's Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment" (PDF). Obsidian Finance Group, LLC. Retrieved January 11, 2013.
  18. ↑ Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1975)
  19. ↑ Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1980)
  20. ↑ Garcia v. Board of Education., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1985)
  21. ↑ In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litigation, 797 F.2d 632, 642 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1986)
  22. ↑ Flamm v. American Association of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2000) (holding that "a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable")
  23. ↑ Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit), affirmed, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ("Any effort to justify a media/nonmedia distinction rests on unstable ground, given the difficulty of defining with precision who belongs to the 'media.'")
  24. 1 2 3 4 Hull, Tim (17 January 2014). "Blogger's Speech Rights Championed in the 9th". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  25. 1 2 3 Levine, Dan (17 January 2014). "Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court". Reuters. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  26. 1 2 Paulson, Ken (24 January 2014). "Bloggers enjoy First Amendment protection against libel suits". First Amendment Center. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
  27. ↑ Paulson, Ken (24 January 2014). "Bloggers enjoy First Amendment protection against libel suits". First Amendment Center. Retrieved 2 February 2014. In a landmark decision on Friday, a federal appellate court held for the first time that blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media.
  28. ↑ Hull, Tim (17 January 2014). "Blogger's Speech Rights Championed in the 9th". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2 February 2014. I think it sets an important precedent that bloggers, for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does," Volokh said in a phone interview. "There have been plenty of past cases around the circuits that point in that direction, but this is the first time that the 9th Circuit has specifically ruled on this, and this is one of the cases that has focused on bloggers. Most cases have dealt with other nonprofessional media, but this one is particularly the first clear blogging case that I know from the circuit courts.
  29. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (17 January 2014). "Bloggers Get First Amendment Protections in Defamation Lawsuits". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.