Stephen Wynn v. Lyle Stuart; Barricade Books Inc.
Published: Oct. 11, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 13, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: A348109 – $3,173,000
Judge
Court
Clark County District, Nevada
Attorneys
Plaintiff
James J. Pisanelli
(Pisanelli Bice PLLC)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Edward Finegan
(technical)
Allan Wittman
(technical)
Defendant
Martin Greenwall
(technical)
Thomas L. Clark
(technical)
Facts
In December 1994, defendant Barricade Books Inc. signed a contract with author John Smith (a journalist for the Las Vegas Review Journal) to publish his unauthorized biography of casino owner Stephen Wynn. The owner of Barricade, defendant Lyle Stuart, wrote a catalogue page for the defendant Barricade's 1995 catalogue, using certain "confidential investigative reports," and purportedly other information that he himself had gathered over many years of gambling in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. The catalogue, published in December 1994, included this key statement that prompted the lawsuit, "it details why a confidential Scotland Yard Report called Wynn a front man for the Genovese family." The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on libel and defamation, and emotional distress theories of recovery. There were a number of motions made prior to the trial. Defendants initially moved to dismiss the complaint based on the fact that the statements sued on were not defamatory, but instead, were simply advertising copy using colorful language and hyperbole. This motion was denied. The defendants subsequently made a motion for summary judgment, again arguing that since the defamatory statements were made in advertising copy, they could not be actionable independent of the book and were simply hyperbole. The defendants motion for summary judgment was denied. The court ruled that the fair report privilege did not apply to the material relied on by defendants, and further ruled that there was sufficient evidence of malice so that a reasonable jury could conclude by a clear and convincing evidence standard that there was, in fact, constitutional malice. The plaintiff invoked the traditional rule of "re-publication," which holds that a party who repeats a defamatory statement, even though that party may attribute that statement to the originator, is guilty of a new defamation. Prior to the trial, there were approximately 20 motions in limine filed by both sides involving constitutional issues, admissibility of evidence and other matters. The plaintiff moved to prevent the defendants from arguing or presenting evidence with respect to improper legal theories. Throughout the case, defendants argued various legal theories that plaintiff alleged were completely inappropriate to the case. The court granted a motion in limine preventing defendants from presenting evidence of or arguing such improper theories.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and one month after the case was filed. Defendants made a motion for new trial, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to reduce damages all of which the court denied. Defendants have also stated that they will appeal. The court has granted a stay of execution pending appeal on condition that defendants post a $1 million dollar bond and that any expenditures of defendants that are not in the ordinary course of business, other than for necessities, be subject to court approval.
Deliberation
One and one-half days
Poll
7-1
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390