Decision of Note: <B>Defamation Claim Reinstated Over 'Hardball' Film</B>

Reversing and remanding, the appeals court first noted that Paramount's labeling the film as fiction didn't shield it from an Illinois defamation claim. For purposes of defamation per se, Muzikowski claimed that his professional reputation had been injured because the O'Neil character lied about being a licensed securities broker and was portrayed as a felon. Paramount argued, however, that the differences between Muzikowski and O'Neil pointed out in Muzikowski's complaint compelled a trier of fact to find an innocent construction of the film.

But the appeals court noted: 'Muzikowski might be able to produce evidence showing that there is in fact no reasonable interpretation of the movie that would support an innocent construction. He may be able to show that no one could think that anyone but him was meant, and the changes to 'his' character, far from supporting an innocent construction that O'Neill is a fictional or different person, only serve to defame him ' We conclude that Muzikowski's allegations, read in the light most favorable to him, entitle him to the chance to prove his claim under a defamation per se theory.'

The Seventh Circuit went on to uphold the dismissal of Muzikowski's defamation per quod claim (which requires requiring extrinsic facts to establish a defamatory meaning) because Muzikowski hadn't pleaded specific damages. But the appeals court allowed Muzikowski to continue with his false light claim, under which the plaintiff must prove that the character portrayal was 'of and concerning', that he was placed in a false light before the public and that the defendants acted with actual malice. On this, the court concluded, 'Muzikowski is entitled to introduce facts showing that these statements cannot reasonably be construed as pertaining to anyone other than himself.'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a youth-baseball coach may have been defamed by the movie 'Hardball.' Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 10-4314.

Plaintiff Robert Muzikowski was a securities broker and insurance salesman who became involved in coaching inner-city Little League Baseball. Outside magazine editor Daniel Coyle wrote the book 'Hardball: A Season in the Projects' after he became involved in Little League coaching. Muzikowski was mentioned several times in Coyle's book. Paramount Pictures later produced a movie based on the book but made no mention of Muzikowski by name or of Little League Baseball. The film included a disclaimer that stated: 'While this motion picture is in part inspired by actual events, persons and organizations, this is a fictitious story and no actual persons, events or organizations have been portrayed.'

Muzikowski filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the film's sometimes unflattering central character, Conor O'Neill, played by Keanu Reeves, nevertheless could be identified as Muzikowski. The complaint alleged defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed the suit.

Reversing and remanding, the appeals court first noted that Paramount's labeling the film as fiction didn't shield it from an Illinois defamation claim. For purposes of defamation per se, Muzikowski claimed that his professional reputation had been injured because the O'Neil character lied about being a licensed securities broker and was portrayed as a felon. Paramount argued, however, that the differences between Muzikowski and O'Neil pointed out in Muzikowski's complaint compelled a trier of fact to find an innocent construction of the film.

But the appeals court noted: 'Muzikowski might be able to produce evidence showing that there is in fact no reasonable interpretation of the movie that would support an innocent construction. He may be able to show that no one could think that anyone but him was meant, and the changes to 'his' character, far from supporting an innocent construction that O'Neill is a fictional or different person, only serve to defame him ' We conclude that Muzikowski's allegations, read in the light most favorable to him, entitle him to the chance to prove his claim under a defamation per se theory.'

The Seventh Circuit went on to uphold the dismissal of Muzikowski's defamation per quod claim (which requires requiring extrinsic facts to establish a defamatory meaning) because Muzikowski hadn't pleaded specific damages. But the appeals court allowed Muzikowski to continue with his false light claim, under which the plaintiff must prove that the character portrayal was 'of and concerning', that he was placed in a false light before the public and that the defendants acted with actual malice. On this, the court concluded, 'Muzikowski is entitled to introduce facts showing that these statements cannot reasonably be construed as pertaining to anyone other than himself.'