James D. Nichols v. Michael Moore

Citations: 477 F.3d 396; 35 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1321; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3684; 2007 WL 507045Docket: 05-2075

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; February 20, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James D. Nichols appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Michael Moore, asserting that the court improperly determined that Moore's allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true and misapplied the 'actual malice' standard regarding public figures. The case arose from Moore's film, *Bowling for Columbine*, which included an edited interview with Nichols, brother of the Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols. Nichols contended that the film's narration falsely implied that he made practice bombs and was arrested in connection to the bombing, despite him being charged only with an unrelated explosives offense that was later dismissed.

Nichols filed his lawsuit in October 2003 in the Eastern District of Michigan, claiming libel per se among other counts. The district court granted summary judgment for Moore on July 13, 2005, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact. The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, affirming the lower court's decision as it found no errors in the factual determinations or legal standards applied by the district court.

Under Michigan defamation law, a plaintiff must establish four elements to prove libel: (1) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; (3) fault by the publisher amounting to at least negligence; and (4) either the statement's actionability regardless of special harm or the existence of special harm resulting from the publication. Additionally, if the plaintiff is a public figure, they must demonstrate actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, as established in *New York Times v. Sullivan*.

In a case involving Michael Moore and James Nichols, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Moore, concluding that the statements made in *Bowling for Columbine* about Nichols were substantially true and that Nichols was a limited public figure unable to meet the actual malice standard. The court's analysis found that the gist of each alleged defamatory statement was true.

Nichols claimed the court did not consider his assertions that he had never experimented with explosives, but the legal standard places the burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff. In libel cases involving private plaintiffs and media defendants concerning public issues, the plaintiff must prove the statements are false. Moreover, a media defendant cannot be held liable for accurately reporting facts about public affairs. Under Michigan law, damages in libel actions cannot be awarded for fair and true reports of public records or proceedings.

The district court found sufficient evidence to support Moore's statement regarding Nichols's involvement with explosive devices. This conclusion was based on an affidavit by FBI Agent Patrick W. Wease, who reported that James Nichols acknowledged observing and participating with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in making and exploding 'bottle bombs' in 1992, and later creating small explosive devices in 1994. The court noted additional sources supporting claims of bomb-making, alongside a detention order indicating clear evidence of Nichols experimenting with explosives. 

Nichols contended that the latter part of Moore's statement regarding 'made practice bombs' was defamatory, arguing there was no evidence of bombs made specifically for the Oklahoma City bombing. However, the court found that the statement was substantially true, as it was undisputed that any bombs made on Nichols's property occurred before the bombing.

Nichols also challenged the statement regarding his arrest in connection to the bombing, which the court found troubling since he was never arrested or charged for any crime related to the bombing. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the statement was substantially true, as Nichols was arrested shortly after the bombing due to the FBI's investigation into the events and was held as a material witness. Nichols himself was uncertain whether his status constituted an arrest concerning the bombing. The court ultimately upheld the determination that both statements were substantially true.

Officials charged James Nichols, present at the hearing, and Terry Nichols, absent, with conspiring to make and possess small bombs. The district court found the statement regarding the charges against James to be substantially true, as the federal grand jury indictment included a charge of "Conspiracy to Possess Unregistered Firearms" related to the manufacturing of destructive devices on Nichols' farm in Michigan. It was noted that in 1992, James, Terry, and Timothy McVeigh experimented with creating and detonating such devices. The court agreed that Moore's statement about the charges being dropped against James was also substantially true, as this occurred due to insufficient evidence.

The district court identified James Nichols as a limited public figure, concluding he could not meet the actual malice standard for defamation, a point affirmed without extensive analysis. Additionally, Nichols' claim of defamation by implication was rejected. He argued that Moore's statements, while individually true, implied his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing when considered in context. Under Michigan law, defamation by implication requires clear evidence of falsity, and true speech about public matters is protected. The court reiterated that a defamation defendant cannot be liable for ambiguous inferences drawn by readers if no false factual assertion was made or if there was no misleading omission of crucial facts.

Moore's narration in "Bowling for Columbine" regarding James Nichols is deemed substantially true. Although viewers might mistakenly infer that Nichols was involved in making practice bombs for the Oklahoma City bombing, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support a defamation by implication claim. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Moore intended to falsely implicate Nichols in the bombing. The court emphasizes that a defendant is not liable for every defamatory implication a viewer might derive from factual reporting unless there is intent to mislead. Moreover, the evidence shows that Moore's narration accurately stated that Nichols faced charges related to small bombs, which were ultimately dropped due to insufficient evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff's defamation claim was unsuccessful, and the district court's summary judgment in favor of Moore is affirmed. Notably, Terry Nichols is serving a life sentence for the bombing, while Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001. The narration was presented alongside relevant video footage of the bombing.