## Facts

- William and Dorothy Quigley had an escalating neighborhood dispute with Mitchell and Candice Aronson, involving complaints such as issues about the Aronsons’ dog.
- During the dispute, the Aronsons secretly intercepted and recorded the Quigleys’ cordless telephone conversations without consent.
- The recordings were later characterized by the Aronsons as evidencing anti-Semitic harassment.
- The Aronsons met multiple times with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Saul Rosenthal (the ADL’s Denver director) regarding the dispute and the recorded calls.
- With ADL assistance, the Aronsons filed a state civil action against the Quigleys alleging harassment and discrimination.
- After the filing, Rosenthal and the ADL held a press conference and made public statements repeating and amplifying the allegations.
- The Quigleys sued Rosenthal and the ADL in federal court for, among other claims, violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and Colorado defamation.
- After a lengthy jury trial, the jury found for the Quigleys on most submitted claims and awarded damages exceeding $10 million.
- Rosenthal and the ADL appealed, challenging liability and damages, including First Amendment defenses and the viability of privacy-tort verdicts.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADL’s and Rosenthal’s statements about the Quigleys concerned a matter of public concern, triggering a First Amendment requirement that private-figure plaintiffs prove actual malice to recover for defamation.
2. Whether Rosenthal and the ADL violated the Federal Wiretap Act by using or disclosing the contents of unlawfully intercepted cordless-phone conversations, and whether the First Amendment barred Wiretap Act liability.
3. Whether Colorado law and the jury instructions supported liability against Rosenthal and the ADL for intrusion upon seclusion and false light.
4. Whether the evidence supported punitive damages on the defamation and Wiretap Act claims.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit held the challenged statements did not involve matters of public concern; the Quigleys were not required to prove actual malice to prevail on defamation.
- The court affirmed Wiretap Act liability and damages, concluding defendants used and disclosed contents of unlawfully intercepted communications and were not protected by the First Amendment.
- The court reversed the judgments on intrusion upon seclusion and false light based on instructional error and/or lack of a legally adequate basis for liability under Colorado law.
- The court affirmed punitive damages on the defamation and Wiretap Act claims, finding sufficient evidence of at least reckless disregard.

## Legal Principles

- Whether speech is of public concern depends on content, form, and context; discrimination allegations tied to private conflict and private litigation do not automatically become public concern speech.
- For defamation involving private-figure plaintiffs and non-public-concern speech, the First Amendment does not require proof of actual malice as a condition of recovery.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d) imposes liability for intentional use or disclosure of the contents of communications unlawfully intercepted, and 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) provides a civil remedy.
- First Amendment defenses to use or publication of illegally obtained information are weaker where the subject is not of public concern and the defendant knew or should have known of the illegality.
- Under Colorado intrusion law, liability focuses on the act of intrusion; using information obtained by another does not substitute for proof that the defendant committed an intrusion.
- Privacy-tort theories must be supported by correct element-specific jury instructions and must not duplicate defamation without a legally distinct basis.
- Punitive damages may be upheld where evidence permits a finding of reckless disregard for truth or for legally protected rights.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit largely preserved the verdict against the ADL and its director for defamation and for using and disclosing illegally intercepted cordless-phone calls, rejecting heightened First Amendment protection because the dispute was essentially private and defendants knew or should have known the interceptions were unlawful; it set aside the intrusion and false-light verdicts for legal deficiencies under Colorado law.


Quigley v. Rosenthal, 327 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2003)