Milligan v. Sinclair Television of Nashville, Inc., 670 F.3d 686 (2012)

Facts

  • In October 2006, law enforcement conducted a nationwide fugitive round-up. In Nashville, the U.S. Marshals Service partnered with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (Metro) to arrest individuals wanted on felony warrants.
  • Metro clerks compiled outstanding warrants and entered suspects’ names and identifying information into a spreadsheet for use during the operation.
  • One warrant was for “Paula Milligan a.k.a. Paula Rebecca Staps,” a North Carolina resident in her twenties with identifying information that did not match Paula Ann Milligan, a 42-year-old Tennessee resident.
  • A Metro clerk, using Metro’s database, mistakenly auto-filled Paula Ann Milligan’s identifying information into the spreadsheet entry for the North Carolina suspect, linking the warrant to the wrong person.
  • On October 24, 2006, officers went to Paula Ann Milligan’s home to execute the warrant. Before doing so, an officer called a warrant clerk to confirm the warrant was still active; the clerk confirmed it without physically reviewing the warrant, which would have revealed mismatched identifying details.
  • Officers arrested Paula Ann Milligan. About a week later, the charges against her were dropped, and the case was dismissed on November 6, 2006.
  • WZTV–Fox 17 (Fox), a Nashville television station operated by Sinclair Television of Nashville, Inc. (Sinclair), was invited to accompany officers and report on the operation; Fox recorded Milligan’s arrest.
  • On November 2, 2006, Fox aired a segment stating that officers arrived “with warrants in hand” and that “[t]heir first arrest came early—Paula Milligan, wanted on four counts of forgery and one count of identity theft,” while showing approximately seven seconds of video of Milligan being led to a police car.
  • Milligan sued Sinclair for defamation (and related reputational tort claims based on the same broadcast). Sinclair moved for summary judgment, invoking Tennessee’s fair-report privilege.
  • Milligan argued the privilege did not apply because the broadcast was not a fair and accurate report of an official action, including by implying officers had a warrant physically present. The district court granted summary judgment to Sinclair, and Milligan appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether Fox 17’s segment was a report of an “official action” covered by Tennessee’s fair-report privilege.
  2. Whether the segment was “fair and accurate” (or a fair abridgment) of the official action, despite the mistaken-identity arrest and the statement that officers had “warrants in hand.”
  3. If the fair-report privilege applied, whether Milligan produced evidence of actual malice sufficient to defeat the privilege and avoid summary judgment.

Decision

  • The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sinclair.
  • The court held Tennessee’s fair-report privilege applied because the broadcast reported an official law-enforcement action (the execution of a warrant and arrest during the roundup).
  • The court concluded the broadcast was sufficiently fair and accurate in substance; any claimed literal inaccuracy (such as “warrants in hand”) did not remove the report from the privilege.
  • The court held Milligan failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact that Sinclair acted with actual malice, so the privilege barred liability.
  • Tennessee recognizes a qualified fair-report privilege protecting publications that fairly and accurately report official actions or official proceedings.
  • An arrest made by law enforcement while executing a warrant can constitute an official action for purposes of the privilege.
  • The privilege is not defeated by every minor inaccuracy; the question is whether the publication is substantially accurate or a fair abridgment in substance.
  • When the fair-report privilege applies under Tennessee law, the plaintiff must show actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth—to overcome the privilege.
  • Reliance on official activity and information, absent evidence the publisher seriously doubted its truth, generally does not support an actual-malice finding at the summary-judgment stage.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sinclair, holding that Fox 17’s report on Milligan’s arrest during a joint Marshals–Metro fugitive roundup fell within Tennessee’s fair-report privilege as a substantially accurate account of an official law-enforcement action, and that Milligan failed to raise a triable issue that the station acted with actual malice.