Absolute vs. Qualified Immunity to Defame Someone in Affidavit and/or Florida Court Proceeding

Defamation

One area where a person has a fairly wide latitude to allegedly defame someone is… in a court proceeding.

Specifically, Florida recognizes a doctrine of absolute immunity for “defamatory words published in the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of how false or malicious the statements may be, as long as the statements bear some relation or connection with the subject [case].”  This is a pretty solid doctrine, dating back to a 1907 case.

Who decides whether an allegedly defamatory statement “bears some relation or connection”?  The trial judge, who has broad discretion since “much latitude must be allowed to the judgment… of those who maintain a cause in court.”  In fact, the precedent says that there is no “strict relevancy test” imposed.

So what happens if an allegedly defamatory statement in the courtroom or record does not bear a relation/connection to the case?

The party who made the statement still has a “qualified privilege” which can only be overcome by a showing of express malice (a high standard).

What’s the reason for such flexibility to trash defame someone in the courtroom or record?  One, parties in litigation are adversarial and there’s going to be harsh allegations that sometimes do not ultimately prove true / compensable / up to whatever standard applies.  Likely, since people in Florida have a state constitutional right to access to the courts, we don’t want to chill that by exposing losing parties to defamation suits.  Two, there is judicial oversight in depositions, courtrooms, pleadings, and filings.  The trial court can always strike the defamatory matter from the record.

See John M. Zuccarelli III v. Marilyn Barfield, where a local mayor sued a townsperson who sought an injunction claiming that the mayor had physically and verbally attacked her (the litigants have been involved in a trial and appeal).  There was some dispute whether this was pertinent to the case but the trial judge held that it was relevant to the motion for an injunction.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld.  This was contrasted with DelMonico v. Traynor, where statements outside of the court proceedings (but during investigation) were not protected.

Defamation
Is an alleged defamatory statement by CEO to Board of Directors considered “publication” so that it is actionable? (Hullick v. Gibraltar)

A former officer of a bank asserts that the CEO allegedly made defamatory statements about him in front of the company’s entire Board of Directors, who happened to be non-employees. Is that actionable? The new case of Jonathan Hullick v. Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Co. and Steven D. Hayworth …

Defamation
Does a Negative Employee Review = Defamation?

There is an exception to the general rule regarding defamation when it involves “parties [who] have a mutual interest in evaluating a person’s work.”  These evaluations occur frequently: employee evaluation, customer evaluation of employees, parents’ evaluation of teachers, and former bosses evaluating former employees to prospective new employers. Under those …

Defamation
Florida Defamation: Reporting a Doctor to NPDB – “Single Publication” or “Multiple Publication”?

The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed with a Middle District of Florida ruling that a report of a doctor’s misconduct to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) begins the two-year statute of limitation for any possible defamation case because it is a “single publication” and there are internal safeguards, …