Westmoreland v. CBS Inc.

Summary

The court denied CBS Inc. and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment in General Westmoreland's libel action concerning a CBS documentary about intelligence estimates during the Vietnam War. The court held that the documentary's accusations of deliberate misconduct were not protected merely as opinions and found triable issues regarding constitutional malice, including alleged distortions, misattributions, and misleading editing. A supplemental opinion selected the term "state of mind" for use before the jury instead of "actual malice."

Holdings

1. The court declined to extend the qualified immunity recognized in New York Times v. Sullivan to an absolute immunity for commentary about high-ranking public officials and denied that branch of the motion with leave to renew after trial.
2. The opinion privilege did not shield the documentary's core accusations that Westmoreland ordered or induced officers to draw dishonest conclusions and issue false intelligence reports.
3. Summary judgment could not be granted on the ground that the documentary was true because Westmoreland presented conflicting evidence concerning the truth of the broadcast's accusations.
4. Evidence that defendants knowingly or recklessly distorted, misattributed, or misleadingly edited supporting evidence raised genuine issues of material fact concerning constitutional malice and precluded summary judgment.
5. A nonmoving plaintiff need not establish at the summary-judgment stage that his evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict; it is enough to show that the moving defendants have not demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
6. The court concluded in the supplemental opinion that "state of mind" was the most appropriate label to use before the jury for the element commonly called actual malice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CBS was entitled to absolute First Amendment immunity from a libel action brought by a high-ranking public official concerning commentary on his official performance.
2. Whether the documentary's characterization of Westmoreland's conduct as a conspiracy or related commentary was protected opinion rather than actionable factual accusation.
3. Whether disputed evidence concerning the truth of the broadcast required denial of summary judgment.
4. Whether the evidence raised a genuine issue of fact as to constitutional malice, including whether defendants knowingly or recklessly misstated or distorted evidence.
5. Whether the summary-judgment standard required Westmoreland to prove that his evidence would sustain a verdict by clear and convincing evidence before the motion could be denied.
6. What terminology should be used before the jury to describe the constitutional-malice element.

Disposition

other