MOTIONS TO DISMISS MAY BE WINNING STRATEGY FOR MEDIA IN LIBEL AND PRIVACY LAWSUITS

A study of 661 cases of libel, privacy and other content-related claims against media defendants from 1983 to 2003 shows that almost three-quarters of these cases – 72.9 percent (482 cases) – ended with a trial or appeals court granting a motion to dismiss. Partial motions to dismiss were granted in an additional 10.6 percent (70 cases). Motions to dismiss are brought at the very beginning of a lawsuit, and can be a powerful tool in short-circuiting otherwise lengthy, costly litigation in these First Amendment-sensitive claims.

The study was conducted by the Media Law Resource Center, a non-profit information clearinghouse organized in 1980 by leading media groups to monitor developments and promote First Amendment rights in the libel, privacy and related fields.

"Our study shows that motions to dismiss are a significant in the arsenal of media defendants in libel, privacy and other content-based claims," said MLRC Executive Director Sandra Baron. "They are a potent remedy for media defendants that should be used at all appropriate opportunities to stop wrongful litigation before it consumes scarce resources and distracts from the media’s important role in informing the public."

The latest study builds upon previous MLRC studies on motions to dismiss in media cases in 1983 and 1996, and shows that results have generally remained consistent in each of the periods between these studies.

Among MLRC’s findings in this new study:

• State courts were more likely to grant motions to dismiss, and uphold the dismissal on appeal, than were federal courts.
• The issue most frequently argued in the motions to dismiss was whether or not the claim was defamatory or not. Motions were granted in over 70 percent of the cases in the study that addressed this issue.
• Because of the very early stage in lawsuits at which motions to dismiss are brought, only a modest number of cases classified the plaintiffs as either "public" or "private" figures. But the media won a significantly higher percentage of the motions to dismiss in the "public" plaintiff cases (71.4 percent) than in cases involving "private figures" (51.9 percent).

The study examines the ultimate disposition of cases, as well as results at both the trial court and appellate level. It also compares these results by type of plaintiff, type of court, and by jurisdiction. The study also examines defendants’ relative success on motions to dismiss on various claims and issues.

The motion to dismiss study is just one of several studies that MLRC regularly undertakes on various aspects of media law and litigation. Other recent studies have focused on complaints in media law cases and on summary judgment.

The Media Law Resource Center has also systematically monitored trends in libel and privacy trials and appeals since 1980, and its empirical data have been widely cited and reported in the media, in scholarly publications and in judicial opinions. MLRC’s studies have thus played a central role in the ongoing debate over the effect of libel claims on freedom of the press.

MLRC’s members include leading publishers and broadcasters, various media and professional trade associations, and media insurance carriers. MLRC’s law firm wing, the MLRC Defense Counsel Section, consists of approximately 200 member firms around the country and abroad with specialities in media and libel defense representation.

The report is available for $35 from MLRC by calling (212) 337-0200.

# # #