Ramey v. Kingsport Publishing Corp.

Citations: 905 F. Supp. 355; 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1472; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18508; 1995 WL 723221Docket: Civ. A. 93-005-B

Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia; September 12, 1995; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Ramey filed a libel suit against Kingsport Publishing Corp. related to five articles published in the Kingsport Times-News in early 1992, which reported on a criminal investigation into the death of a newborn associated with Clinch Valley College student Mandy Holbrook. The articles suggested Ramey and his roommate Brett Campbell might have assisted Holbrook during the baby’s delivery. The case was removed from Wise County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. 

Ramey was not charged with any crime following a search of his apartment, which yielded no incriminating evidence. Holbrook was later indicted and pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and parental neglect. Kingsport Publishing Corp. moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact. The court granted the motion, stating that to prevail, the moving party must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the nonmoving party must present specific facts indicating a dispute. The court considered all facts in favor of Ramey while assessing Kingsport's motion.

In Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., the court outlines the elements of defamation under Virginia law: publication about the plaintiff, an actionable statement, and intent. Truth and privilege serve as complete defenses. When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, facts must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. The plaintiff alleges that the published statements were false and made with the necessary intent, leading the court to consider whether privilege applies and if the statements are actionable despite being potentially false.

The articles from February 27, 28, and 29 reported on official documents, including a sheriff's affidavit related to a suspected illegal abortion. The February 27 article claimed that two students suspected of assisting in the delivery were not suspended, while the February 28 article suggested that Michael Ramey may have helped deliver a baby, based on the affidavit's content. The February 29 article further described Ramey and his roommate as students believed to have assisted in the delivery.

Virginia's fair report doctrine protects publishers from liability for accurately summarizing official statements. The court found the statements regarding Ramey to be reasonable inferences from the sheriff’s affidavit, which suggested probable cause for searching Ramey’s apartment for abortion-related evidence. These inferences were deemed "substantially correct" and thus covered by the fair report privilege, leading to summary judgment for the defendant regarding these articles.

Additionally, the February 28 and 29 articles included statements attributed to Wise County Commonwealth's Attorney Timothy McAfee, claiming Ramey had refused to speak to authorities. The plaintiff contended these were false. However, the court ruled these statements as nonlibelous, affirming summary judgment in favor of Kingsport. To be defamatory, statements must make a plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous.

The court grants summary judgment to the defendant regarding statements made about the plaintiff's exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent, noting that such statements are not inherently defamatory. The court emphasizes that the right to remain silent is widely recognized and does not imply guilt. Specifically, the articles dated March 3 and March 4, 1992, which describe the plaintiff as the only suspect in an infant's death, do not portray the plaintiff in a negative light. The court cites Virginia's libel law and the case of Gazette v. Harris, which establishes that the media's duty to avoid defamation involves assessing whether statements pose a substantial danger to a person's reputation. The court concludes that the articles, when considered in their entirety, lack the necessary elements to be considered libelous. Therefore, the court orders summary judgment in favor of the defendant, affirming that the statements challenged by the plaintiff do not constitute defamation under Virginia law, and the defendant is protected under the fair report doctrine.