NJ ICLE PANEL PRESENTS "LIBEL/SLANDER AND WHY CLIENTS NEED TO WORRY - CREDIBLE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES"
Terry Camp
On October 26, 2018, I was honored to appear as a panelist at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education's, "Libel/Slander and Why Clients Need to Worry - Credible Claims and Defenses." This seminar, sponsored by the Bar’s Media Law Special Committee; the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section; and other Sections, presented a comprehensive review with commentary on the current state of Defamation Law in New Jersey and the extensive legal history that led to it.
Whether on corporate message boards, social media or by anonymous e-mail to your business relations, there has been a modern-day proliferation of published statements that are false and harmful to a person's reputation, expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt and/or cause a victim to be shunned or avoided. See Dairy Stores v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125 (1986). The panel covered:
- the elements of all claims and defenses to these actions
- when re-publication may extend the short, one-year statute of limitations
- pursuit of the person who posts or e-mails anonymously
- corporate and employer-employee defamation
- regulating employee use of social media
- Internet Service Provider (ISP) immunity and
- the future of defamation law.
I spoke on two issues: (1) the use of N.J. Rule 4:11-1 to pursue disclosure of the anonymous e-mailer to a third-party by way of a Petition for Pre-Litigation Discovery (relief that I achieved for a leading entertainment booking agency in 2002) and (2) New Jersey's landmark Appellate Division opinion in Dendrite Intern., Inc., v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (2001). The Court in Dendrite had to balance the First Amendment right to speak anonymously and the right of a defamed party to protect its proprietary interests and reputation by asserting claims. The Court set forth essential issues of proof that must be satisfied in order for a court to permit discovery from an ISP of the identity of the anonymous poster. Ruling in Dendrite, the Court importantly found that Dendrite had failed to show that "John Doe No. 3's" message board posts had sufficiently been shown to have "negatively affected" Dendrite stock or otherwise caused Dendrite harm. Dendrite was particularly cited for failing to "establish a sufficient nexus" between the posts and the allegations of harm.
In today's Information Age, where "publication" of statements (whether electronically or verbally) by individuals occurs daily and often without careful thought, this area of law is sure to remain active and will continue to develop.
The seminar audio and materials are available for purchase through NJ ICLE.
Addendum: And just a week after our seminar, Hollywood Reporter published this, detailed article on the Dr. Luke v. Kesha music industry defamation suit that is ongoing as of 11/2/18. The article includes a scoop, as Kesha's attorney's inadvertently publicly filed a brief that was intended to be Under Seal. They quickly caught it, but not before Hollywood Reporter grabbed it and went to press.
https://apple.news/ADp9tbCVrTtKLe9KGVrR7FQ
TERENCE W. CAMP, ESQ.
BUDD LARNER, P.C., 150 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078