## Facts

- Dr. Michael Epstein, a physician, previously practiced in South Carolina but later moved to Texas to work for a Veterans Administration hospital.
- Rachel Benn, a Georgia resident, worked as a reporter for Gray Television, Inc. and Gray Television Group, Inc. (collectively, Gray).
- Benn produced an investigative report about malpractice lawsuits filed against Epstein in South Carolina.
- Benn conducted most of her reporting work outside Texas (primarily in Georgia and South Carolina), but her newsgathering included Texas-directed activity:
  - She interviewed Epstein by telephone while he was in Texas.
  - She researched Texas law as part of the story.
  - She searched for information about Epstein through the Texas Medical Board.
  - She provided information from her investigation to the Veterans Administration (Epstein’s employer in Texas).
- Gray broadcast the report on television stations in Georgia and South Carolina and posted it on its website.
- Benn also provided the report to a Texas affiliate station, although the Texas affiliate did not air it.
- Epstein sued Gray and Benn for libel in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Benn moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing she lacked sufficient contacts with Texas.

## Issues

1. Whether a Texas federal court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction, consistent with due process, over a Georgia reporter in a libel action based on a report largely investigated and broadcast outside Texas.
2. Whether Benn’s Texas-focused investigation and communications amounted to purposeful direction toward Texas under the minimum-contacts and Calder analysis.
3. Whether exercising jurisdiction over Benn would be fair and reasonable under the “fair play and substantial justice” factors.

## Decision

- The court denied Benn’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that Benn’s Texas-directed actions created sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction because the libel claim arose from or related to those contacts.
- The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas was consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- The court noted that even with proper jurisdiction, Benn could still seek a transfer of venue.

## Legal Principles

- Texas’s long-arm statute reaches as far as due process allows, so the analysis turns on constitutional minimum-contacts limits.
- Specific jurisdiction requires:
  - Minimum contacts showing the defendant purposefully directed actions toward the forum (not contacts that are random or accidental); and
  - A connection between those forum-directed contacts and the claims asserted.
- In intentional-tort cases such as defamation, courts may apply the Calder “effects” approach: jurisdiction is proper when the defendant’s conduct is expressly aimed at the forum and the injury is expected to be felt there.
- A broadcast outside the forum or content posted on a generally accessible website, standing alone, may not establish purposeful direction toward the forum; additional forum-targeted reporting steps and communications can support specific jurisdiction.
- Even where minimum contacts exist, the court must still consider whether jurisdiction is reasonable in light of fairness factors (including burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in relief, and efficient resolution).

## Conclusion

Epstein v. Gray Television, Inc. held that a Texas federal court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident reporter accused of libel where, although most reporting occurred outside Texas and the principal broadcasts were in other states, the reporter intentionally directed investigative efforts and communications into Texas—interviewing the plaintiff in Texas, researching Texas law, consulting Texas regulators, and communicating with the plaintiff’s Texas employer—making it foreseeable that the reputational and employment harm would be felt in Texas and that she could be sued there.


Epstein v. Gray Television, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 835 (2007)