Dorsey v. National Enquirer, Inc.

Kathy Jetter sought a court order requiring Arnold Dorsey (aka Engelbert Humperdinck) (plaintiff) to purchase life insurance for their daughter’s benefit. Jetter’s affidavit maintained upon information and belief that Dorsey had the AIDS virus. Jetter gave the National Enquirer (Enquirer) a copy of the affidavit. The Enquirer published an article quoting the affidavit; Jetter’s statement that she would not have filed the court papers if she were not 100 percent convinced Dorsey had the virus; and Jetter’s investigator’s statements about when Dorsey tested positive, the treating hospital, and the information’s basis being a five-year investigation. Dorsey sued National Enquirer, Inc. (defendant), publisher of the Enquirer, for defamation. The district court granted summary judgment to National Enquirer, ruling that the article was a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding and therefore privileged from defamation under California Civil Code § 47(4), which made a fair and true report in a public journal of anything said during a judicial, legislative, or other public official proceeding privileged from a defamation suit. On appeal, Dorsey argued that the privilege did not apply to closed judicial proceedings; the trier of fact should have determined whether the article was a fair report; and the article was not a fair and true report because its sting exceeded that of Jetter’s qualified, upon-information-and-belief allegation in the affidavit.