Adelson v. Jacobs

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court considers whether statements made to the media about ongoing litigation are protected by Nevada's absolute judicial-proceeding privilege. The court adopts the majority view that statements to media organizations lacking a legal or financial interest in the litigation are not absolutely privileged, reverses the dismissal of Jacobs's defamation claim, and remands for further proceedings. The court declines to resolve the asserted conditional privilege of reply because the factual record had not been developed.

Holdings

1. Statements made to the media in an extrajudicial setting are not absolutely privileged when the media recipient is not a party to the litigation or otherwise legally or financially connected to, and significantly interested in, the litigation. The Wall Street Journal was merely an observer and therefore Adelson's statements were not sufficiently connected to the judicial proceedings to invoke absolute privilege.
2. The court declined to decide whether the conditional privilege of reply protected Adelson's statements because the district court had not addressed the issue and the factual record had not been developed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether statements made by a litigant to the media concerning ongoing or contemplated litigation are protected by Nevada's absolute judicial-proceeding privilege when the media recipient has no legal or financial interest in the litigation.
2. Whether the court should determine at the motion-to-dismiss stage whether Adelson's statements were protected by the conditional privilege of reply.
3. Whether Adelson's statements were nonactionable opinions rather than factual assertions.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded