Kanaga v. Gannett Company
Delaware Superior Court
1993 WL 485926 (1993)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Dr. Margo Kanaga (plaintiff) sued author Jane Harriman and Gannett Company (defendants), alleging that she was defamed by an article authored by Harriman and printed in a Gannett-owned newspaper. The article reported that Kanaga had recommended that a former patient undergo a hysterectomy that another physician later determined was unnecessary. Kanaga claimed that the article’s criticism of her skill and ethics severely damaged her reputation and medical practice. Law firm Richards, Layton and Finger (RL&F) answered on behalf of Harriman and Gannett. Kanaga moved to disqualify RL&F because John Parkins, an RL&F partner, had represented Kanaga in a prior action alleging medical malpractice in the performance of a hysterectomy. The jury had found for Kanaga, and the supreme court had held that a verdict for Kanaga should have been directed because no expert testimony had been presented. Kanaga maintained that she had disclosed to Parkins confidences about her medical practices and procedures, her professional skill, and her standing and reputation in the medical community that were critical to her defense in the defamation suit. Parkins submitted an affidavit stating that he did not recall discussing with Kanaga her standing and reputation. Gannett and Harriman argued that Kanaga’s professional abilities and standing and reputation in the medical community were not confidential information, and a discussion with Parkins about Kanaga’s standing and reputation would be unlikely because it would be immaterial to a medical-malpractice action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bifferato, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.