## Facts

- In 1961, Lee Dresbach’s teenage brother murdered their parents.
- Michael Mewshaw, a neighbor and peer, personally knew the family and later had close contact with both brothers; Lee lived with Mewshaw’s family for several years after the murders.
- In 1980, Mewshaw authored *Life For Death*, published by Doubleday, recounting the murders and aftermath, the brothers’ background, imprisonment and rehabilitation, and details about Lee’s conduct and character.
- Lee sued the author and publisher under state law, alleging (1) public disclosure of private facts, (2) false light invasion of privacy, and (3) libel, asserting that the book disclosed highly personal matters and falsely implied he was complicit in the murders and otherwise portrayed him disparagingly.
- In a diversity action, both defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether publication of truthful but highly personal information about a decades-old family murder supports liability for public disclosure of private facts, or is barred because the subject remains of legitimate public interest.
2. Whether the book’s alleged inaccurate or misleading portrayals of the plaintiff create a triable false light claim, and if so, against which defendant.
3. Whether alleged defamatory statements or implications (including implied criminal complicity) are actionable, and whether summary judgment is proper for the author and/or publisher.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for Doubleday on the privacy and libel claims, and Doubleday was dismissed.
- The public-disclosure/private-facts claim failed as a matter of law because the book addressed matters of legitimate public interest (crime, punishment, and rehabilitation), and the passage of time did not eliminate that public concern.
- Summary judgment was denied for Mewshaw on false light and libel because the record left triable questions about whether passages could be read to convey false, offensive, and defamatory implications about the plaintiff, including implied complicity in the murders.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of private facts requires (1) highly offensive disclosure to a reasonable person and (2) lack of legitimate public concern; truthful publication on newsworthy matters is protected.
- Serious crime and the criminal justice system are generally matters of public interest, and that interest may persist decades after the events.
- First Amendment protections substantially limit privacy liability for truthful discussion of matters of public concern, even when private individuals are involved.
- False light addresses false or misleading portrayals; whether a publication reasonably conveys an offensive, misleading implication and whether it is false often presents fact questions not suitable for summary judgment.
- In defamation involving a private-figure plaintiff, liability may turn on at least negligence as to falsity and defamatory meaning; contextual implications can be actionable if reasonably understood as asserting defamatory facts.
- Publisher liability may be resolved differently from author liability where the publisher lacks sufficient evidence of fault and the work concerns matters of public concern.

## Conclusion

The court held that truthful discussion of a family murder and its aftermath remained newsworthy and could not support a private-facts invasion-of-privacy claim, dismissing the publisher on all claims. It nevertheless allowed the plaintiff’s false light and libel claims to proceed against the author because a factfinder could conclude that the book conveyed materially false and defamatory implications about the plaintiff’s role and character.


Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F. Supp. 1285 (D.D.C. 1981)