MCN Press Release: Finke v. Disney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JOURNALIST'S CASE AGAINST DISNEY
UPHELD BY COURT OF APPEAL

LOS ANGELES -- The California Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by the Walt Disney Co. to dismiss all claims filed by veteran entertainment business journalist Nikki Finke arising out of her firing by the New York Post because of Disney's complaints over two articles she wrote about the high-profile Winnie-the-Pooh merchandising litigation, Slesinger v. Disney. The ruling was handed down on Monday, July 28, 2003.

In a unanimous 37-page published opinion, the three appellate judges ruled Finke had shown a probability of prevailing on her causes of action against Disney for libel, intentional and negligent interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Court's decision also clarified that news reporters are not public figures merely because they are read by the public, have bylines and/or cover public issues. Accordingly, Finke does not have to prove malice in order to prevail on her libel claim.

"This is a banner day for all journalists," Finke's lead counsel Pierce ODonnell said Tuesday about the Court of Appeals ruling in Finke's favor. "Influential companies like Disney cannot manipulate the legal system to squash legitimate claims challenging heavy-handed conduct in defaming conscientious reporters and getting them fired for doing their job."

Finke commented: "Reporters should not be punished for writing truthful and accurate articles even about the powerful. I look forward to complete vindication by a Los Angeles jury."

On April 12, 2002, Finke filed a lawsuit against Disney for defaming her and successfully getting her terminated from the New York Post because she had authored two articles about the on-going Pooh litigation that displeased Disney. In her articles, Finke accurately reported that the trial court had sanctioned Disney $90,000 for destroying documents and that Disney could potentially take a huge hit to its bottom line if its license to exploit Winnie-the-Pooh and the related characters were cancelled. In response, Disney filed an anti-SLAPP motion, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 425.16, claiming Finke sought to chill Disney's free speech rights and attacking all of Finke's causes of action against Disney. In July of 2002, Judge Gregory Alarcon of the Los Angeles Superior Court rejected Disney's anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply and that Finkes lawsuit should go forward. Disney immediately appealed that ruling.

The Court of Appeal held that Finkes lawsuit should proceed. Although the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's ruling that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply to Finke's causes of action, the Court of Appeal went on to find that Finke -- even though she has not had the opportunity to conduct any discovery -- had established a "reasonable probability" of success on the merits of her case as to her causes of action for tortious interference, libel, and infliction of emotional distress. Finke made this showing by demonstrating the defamatory nature of a letter allegedly sent by Robert Iger, Disney's president, to Col Allan, the New York Post's editor-in-chief. As the Court itself described the Iger letter, it claims that Finke's articles "includes serious misrepresentations clearly designed to injure the Walt Disney Company;" contains "a gross misstatement of the facts" and an "absolute distortion" of the court records; is "absolutely false" in
describing one court order and "grossly mischaracterized" another. The letter concludes by stating Finke's reporting constituted an "inaccurate,misleading and unbalanced account of the court proceedings."

The Court of Appeal also noted that Disney accused Finke of "deliberatey misrepresenting the facts in order to injure the Walt Disney Company."

Finke consistently maintained that these false, defamatory statements were damaging to her reputation as an accurate, ethical, and fair reporter. The Court of Appeal agreed.

In ruling in Finkes favor, the Court of Appeal held that the contents of at least some of Iger's statements support a cause of action for libel, none are privileged and Finke has a probability of showing the statements are false.

The same evidence supported Finke's causes of action for infliction of emotional distress, the Court of Appeal determined. Likewise, the Iger letter was the basis for finding that Finke has shown a probability of prevailing on her interference claims. The Court held that "[a] trier of fact could reasonably infer Disney engaged in a campaign of defamation against Finke in order to cause her to be terminated by the Post before the Disney shareholder's meeting so that Disney management could put a favorable spin on the Pooh discovery proceedings and point to Finke's firing as evidence [that] a less favorable report on the proceedings was not trustworthy."

The Court further concluded that Finke did not establish a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for slander and unfair business practices because she had not yet put forth admissible evidence on these claims.

The complete opinion of the Court of Appeal can be found at:
<http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B160267.PDF> or
<http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B160267.DOC>.
For background: <http://www.oslaw.com/news_press.html>