Opinion
14-P-131
12-23-2014
THOMAS LOCKE v. WHDH-TV, INC.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Thomas Locke, a former US Airways mechanic, claims that WHDH-TV, Inc. (WHDH), defamed him when it broadcast and published on the Internet stories accusing him of theft from airplanes he serviced at Logan Airport. A Superior Court judge allowed WHDH's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
In August, 2009, US Airways representatives met with State police to discuss anonymous whistleblower tips about thefts from US Airways planes at Logan Airport. The State police began surveillance on a US Airways hangar. On the night of September 18, 2009, State police troopers observed Locke exiting the US Airways hangar carrying a cooler and a plastic trash bag. The police stopped Locke, and subsequently discovered in the cooler and trash bag eleven cans of beer, a bottle of wine, two bottles of Starbuck's Frappucino, six bags of potato chips, cookies, eight bottles of hand soap, ten rolls of toilet paper, magazines, and other items from a US Airways plane. Locke admitted to the theft.
The police did not arrest Locke, but filed an application for a criminal complaint on a charge of larceny under $250 in the East Boston division of the Boston Municipal Court. The police report of the theft notes that "Locke advised [the police] that he has been stealing similar items for approximately one year. Almost daily." Locke subsequently appeared at a court hearing before a clerk-magistrate, who dismissed the charge.
Locke admitted during his deposition that this is what the police report says, but he contests having told the police that he stole on more than one occasion. We do not rely on the police report in reaching our decision and instead rely on Locke's own deposition testimony as well as his one admitted theft.
The parties dispute whether the charge was dismissed immediately at the hearing before the clerk-magistrate or six months later, following no further incidents involving Locke. We consider the difference immaterial to our decision here because neither version has a particularly greater defamatory sting than the other.
WHDH reported the story on various occasions on November 4 and 5, 2009, at least one time on the Internet, and the rest via television broadcasts. While the form of the reports varied slightly, they essentially stated that Locke had been caught with airplane beer, wine, toilet paper, and cookies and had been "stealing for a year . . . pilfering from jets he had access to as a mechanic."
Some of the transcripts of the reports are dated "11/4/11," which appears to be in error based on the rest of the record. For the purposes of this particular fact, we rely on the Superior Court judge's order and the briefs and admissions of the parties.
At his deposition, Locke admitted taking things from planes on other days, claiming that it was "common practice," even among foremen, to take things from planes to the mechanics' break room to share them for personal consumption. Locke contends that US Airways tolerated this behavior, and that his only theft was when he attempted to remove items from the airport on September 18, 2009. He admitted, however, that nobody told him that taking the items from the planes was authorized by US Airways.
Locke claims that he has been defamed because he stole items only once and the WHDH reports that he had stolen repeatedly were false. Because we agree with the Superior Court judge that the gist and defamatory sting of Locke's actions and admissions and WHDH's reports were substantially similar, we affirm.
Discussion. Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). "Summary judgment is 'especially favored in defamation cases'" because the trial costs associated even with a successful defense of a defamation claim may chill free speech and "may induce an unnecessary and undesirable self-censorship." LaChance v. Boston Herald, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 910-911 (2011), quoting from Dulgarian v. Stone, 420 Mass. 843, 846 (1995). To survive WHDH's motion for summary judgment, Locke "needed to show evidence establishing disputed issues of material fact that (1) [WHDH] made a false statement or statements 'of and concerning' [Locke] to a third party; (2) the statement or statements could damage [Locke's] reputation within the community; (3) [WHDH] was negligent in making the statement or statements; and (4) the statement caused economic harm or is actionable without proof of economic harm" (footnote omitted). Reilly v. Associated Press, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 764, 768-769 (2003).
When we compare Locke's admissions, and the other uncontested facts, with WHDH's reports, we conclude that the reports were essentially true. "[W]hen a statement is substantially true, a minor inaccuracy will not support a defamation claim." Id. at 770. This is because the "impact of that statement [would] not create a substantially greater defamatory sting than an accurate report." Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. 786, 795-796 (1987). Locke in essence admitted that he repeatedly pilfered items from the US Airways planes for his own consumption, as WHDH reported. He claims that he did not steal the items as WHDH reported because he brought them to the break room for shared consumption rather than taking them away from the airport for his sole use. As the Superior Court judge cogently explained:
"The essence of the conduct described in the reports and that to which Locke has admitted, is the same, whether consumption occurred on or off the premises, and whether others (including supervisors) participated or not. Locke took items that did not belong to him . . . . In this regard, it is significant that [WHDH's] reports provided examples of the items police found in Locke's possession: '[11] beers, a bottle of wine, toilet paper, paper towels, chips and cookies.' A viewer would necessarily understand from this list that the scale of the conduct was small, and that the motive was likely personal consumption rather than income-generating activity. No reasonable jury, in the Court's view, could find that any inference that on previous occasions Locke took the items for personal consumption off the premises, rather than in the break room, would have made any difference in the effect on Locke's reputation."
For these reasons, we conclude that Locke's defamation claim fails, and WHDH's motion for summary judgment was properly allowed.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Vuono, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: December 23, 2014.