## Facts

- ABC’s “20/20,” hosted by Geraldo Rivera, investigated rumors that an Akron judge traded favorable rulings for sex and that William G. Brooks intimidated potential witnesses for the judge.
- Brooks had a widely reported criminal record, including convictions for breaking and entering, grand larceny, first-degree manslaughter, and a weapons offense.
- Rivera arranged for Brooks to come to a hotel; Brooks alleged he was induced by a false promise of a private meeting with Rivera and Brooks’s attorney.
- When Brooks arrived by taxi, Rivera confronted him on a public street and rapidly questioned him about whether he was the judge’s “hit man” or “enforcer” and whether he intimidated prostitutes expected to testify.
- After Brooks responded briefly, Rivera summoned a camera crew from a nearby van; Brooks fled as Rivera and the crew pursued.
- “20/20” broadcast excerpts of the encounter and accompanying commentary portraying Brooks in highly negative terms, including references suggesting he served as the judge’s “hit man.”
- Before the broadcast, Brooks had been indicted for obstruction-related conduct tied to the judge investigation, and local press reported allegations that he intimidated witnesses.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly denied leave to amend the complaint as futile where the proposed federal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985 failed to state a claim.
2. Whether summary judgment for defendants on the defamation claim was proper on the ground that Brooks was “libel-proof” as a matter of law, or whether genuine disputes of material fact remained.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of leave to amend because the proposed § 2511 and §§ 1981/1985 claims did not state viable causes of action.
- Reversed summary judgment for defendants on the defamation claim because, under the analysis the district court used, genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Brooks was libel-proof and whether the broadcast caused additional reputational harm.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the libel claim.

## Legal Principles

- Leave to amend may be denied as futile when the proposed amended complaint would not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- A claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 requires facts showing an actionable interception of an “oral communication” within the statute’s scope; public, overt newsgathering as alleged did not satisfy the pleading requirement here.
- Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985 require factual allegations supporting race-based discrimination and, for § 1985(3), a race-based conspiracy; conclusory or non-racial allegations are insufficient.
- The libel-proof doctrine is not applied mechanically; even a plaintiff with a serious criminal history may suffer incremental reputational harm from distinct, specific accusations, making the issue fact-dependent and often unsuitable for summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Brooks could not add federal wiretap and civil-rights claims that were inadequately pleaded, but it rejected summary judgment resting on a categorical view that Brooks’s prior criminal notoriety made him incapable of further reputational injury, requiring a remand to litigate the defamation claim.


Brooks v. Am. Broad. Cos., 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991)