1
No. B582629 IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 3
FX NETWORKS, LLC AND PACIFIC 2.1 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
v. OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND, DBE,
Plaintiff-Respondent.
On Appeal From Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC667011 The Honorable Holly E. Kendig, Dept. 42
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
Howarth & Smith Don Howarth (SBN 35783) *Suzelle M. Smith (SBN 113992) ssmith@howarth-smith.com Zoe E. Tremayne (SBN 310183) 523 W. Sixth Street, Suite 728 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Tel: (213) 955 – 9400 Fax: (213) 622 – 0791
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent
Olivia de Havilland, DBE
R e c e i v e d b y S e c on d Di s t r i c t C o ur t of A p p e a l
2
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES OR PERSONS
Pursuant to Rule of Court 8.208, there are no interested entities or persons that must be listed in this certificate. Dated: December 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, HOWARTH & SMITH By: /s/ Suzelle M. Smith Suzelle M. Smith Attorneys for Respondent OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND, DBE
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................... 15 IV.
LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING APPELLANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION ............................................................................. 17 A. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 17 B. The Trial Court Used the Proper Standard for Reviewing the Evidence .................................................................... 18 C. Proper Court of Appeal Standard for Review of the Evidence ......... 20 D. California Law Does Not Afford Docudramas any Special Exceptions or Standards .................................................................... 21 E. Respondent’s Burden of Proof on False Light ................................... 26 1. Falsity and Defamation ............................................................. 28 2. Malice ........................................................................................ 30 a. Standard of Proof Required for Malice ............................. 32 F. Legal Standards Governing Statutory and Common Law Right to Publicity Claims ................................................................... 37 1. First Amendment Defense ......................................................... 38 2. Appellants Cannot Meet their Burden in Showing that “Feud” was Transformative ................................................ 41 3. Public Interest/Public Affairs Affirmative Defense .................. 45 V.
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON FALSE LIGHT ..................................................................................... 47 A. Falsity ................................................................................................. 47 B. Defamation .......................................................................................... 51 C. Malice ................................................................................................. 54 1. Fake Interview and False Endorsement of “Feud” .................... 55