## Facts

- A. Walker Bingham III and Catherine T.A. Struve had a romantic relationship from 1953 to 1955 and then lived separately for decades.
- After a chance meeting in 1983, they resumed an intimate relationship that continued until 1989.
- In 1989, Struve asserted she had newly recalled that Bingham raped her in 1953 and claimed the memory had been repressed for decades.
- Beginning around December 1989, Struve made repeated oral and written accusations of rape to the Binghams’ family members, neighbors, business associates, and former colleagues.
- In August 1991, Struve began near-daily picketing outside the Binghams’ apartment building wearing a sign accusing Bingham of rape and referencing the pending lawsuit.
- The Binghams sued for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking damages and injunctive relief, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop further communications.
- The Binghams also sought discovery of Struve’s sealed divorce records; Struve had attributed marital and life difficulties to the alleged rape and its psychological effects.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction and denied access to the sealed divorce file; the Binghams appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction restraining Struve’s continued dissemination of rape accusations pending trial, notwithstanding prior-restraint and free-speech concerns.
2. Whether the court should permit in camera inspection and limited disclosure of Struve’s sealed divorce records based on their potential relevance to causation, damages, and credibility.

## Decision

- The appellate court modified the trial court’s orders and granted a preliminary injunction restraining Struve from further disseminating the challenged accusations pending trial.
- The court directed an in camera inspection of Struve’s sealed divorce records and authorized conditional discovery of relevant portions, if any.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires a showing of (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent relief, and (3) equities favoring the movant.
- Repeated, specific accusations of serious criminal conduct against a private individual may constitute actionable defamation sufficient to support injunctive relief when the record shows likely falsity and substantial ongoing harm.
- Harm to reputation and related non-quantifiable injury may support a finding of irreparable harm where continued publication is threatened.
- Although restraints on speech raise serious constitutional concerns, equitable relief may be available in a private dispute where the speech is shown, on the record presented, to be defamatory and the injunction is tailored to prevent further injury pending adjudication.
- Sealed matrimonial records may be reviewed in camera and disclosed in limited form when a party’s own allegations place marital history and related circumstances at issue, and privacy interests can be protected through restricted disclosure.

## Conclusion

The court granted interim relief against ongoing defamatory accusations directed at a private individual upon a showing of likely success, irreparable reputational harm, and favorable equities, and it balanced discovery needs against privacy by ordering in camera review and limited disclosure of sealed divorce records only to the extent relevant.


Bingham v. Struve, 184 A.D.2d 85, 591 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1992)