## Facts

- Steven M. Kramer, an attorney, represented Richard Thompson beginning in July 1982 in a securities-fraud matter against Thompson’s former broker.
- In 1985, after learning Kramer had responded to an FBI inquiry in a manner Thompson viewed as harmful to his interests, Thompson became angry and discharged Kramer.
- A fee dispute followed; Kramer sought protection for his fee through court-ordered escrow and arbitration before releasing files.
- Thompson filed a disciplinary complaint against Kramer and began sending letters to lawyers, judges, law enforcement, media, and others accusing Kramer of misconduct, including sabotaging the case, destroying documents, drug activity, organized crime ties, and arson.
- Kramer sued Thompson for libel in Pennsylvania state court; Thompson defaulted on liability due to discovery noncompliance and then temporarily stopped publishing the accusations.
- In 1989, Thompson resumed disseminating similar accusations, prompting Kramer to file a federal diversity defamation action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The district court entered judgment for Kramer, awarded damages, and issued orders (1) enjoining Thompson from publishing further defamatory statements about Kramer and (2) compelling Thompson to retract prior statements; additional orders and contempt findings followed when Thompson continued speaking.

## Issues

1. Under Pennsylvania law, may a court in a private defamation action enjoin future defamatory speech and compel retractions of past defamatory statements?
2. What disposition is required for the damages judgment in light of trial-level errors identified on appeal?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the orders enjoining Thompson from publishing future libels and compelling retractions, holding that Pennsylvania law does not authorize such equitable relief in a private defamation action.
- The court treated the requested remedies as a form of prior restraint (and, as to retraction, compelled speech) inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s remedial approach to defamation.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages based on errors addressed in a companion appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania private defamation actions, remedies generally lie in post-publication relief—primarily damages—rather than equitable orders restraining speech.
- Pennsylvania law does not permit injunctions prohibiting future defamatory statements or judicial orders compelling a defendant to publish retractions as civil defamation remedies.
- Even if narrowly tailored injunctions against adjudicated defamation may be argued to be constitutionally permissible in some settings, a federal court applying Pennsylvania law must follow Pennsylvania’s remedial limits.
- A retraction order is not an available defamation remedy under Pennsylvania law and also raises concerns associated with compelled speech.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that, in a Pennsylvania-law defamation case, a court lacks authority to enjoin future defamatory publications or compel retractions; the proper civil remedy is damages, and the case was remanded for a new damages trial.


Kramer v. Thompson, 947 F.2d 666 (3d Cir. 1991)