Texas Court Won't Hear Internet Defamation Case
 
February 28, 2007
 
Debra Deardourff Faulk- Tampa

A federal trial court in San Antonio, Texas, has refused to hear a libel action based on allegedly defamatory comments that were broadcast in another state and also transmitted over the Internet. The court instead will require the plaintiff, a physician who sued over news broadcasts and accompanying Webcasts reporting on malpractice suits, to prosecute his case in South Carolina.

In November and December of 2005, WRDW-TV, an Augusta, Georgia-based station owned by Gray Television Inc., broadcast news stories discussing lawsuits against the physician filed by former patients. The reports were broadcast from Augusta to Aiken, South Carolina. In addition, versions of the reports were also posted on WRDW-TV’s globally-accessible Web site.

In February 2006, WRDW-TV broadcast a follow-up story about a proposed investigation of the physician by the Veterans Administration’s Inspector General. According to the station’s reports, at least 11 malpractice or personal injury claims had been brought against the physician. While most of the claims had settled at the time of broadcast, the news report highlighted a 1998 malpractice suit resulting in a $3 million verdict.

At the time of the broadcasts, the physician was living in San Antonio and practicing at a VA hospital. Three months after the follow-up story, the physician filed a defamation lawsuit against the television station, the station’s reporter and the wife of the physician’s former patient, who had been a source in the story. He sued in a Texas federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The station filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, a motion to transfer venue. In addition, the reporter and former patient’s wife filed motions to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas.

On January 5, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered the case transferred to the federal court in the District of South Carolina in Aiken. According to the ruling, the physician’s patient records had remained in South Carolina, all of the television station’s witnesses were located there, and most of the witnesses’ medical conditions prevent them from traveling to Texas to testify. Additionally, the court noted, the alleged defamation occurred in South Carolina as the broadcasts took place there. Finally, the court noted, the physician still holds a valid medical license and driver’s license issued from that state.

Because transferring the case to a venue which is closer to the important witnesses and the sources of proof, the court held, the private interest factors weighed heavily in favor of the transfer to South Carolina.

 

For more information, e-mail Debra Deardourff Faulk at debra.faulk@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.