Libel is false, “published or broadcast communication that lowers the reputation of an individual by holding him or her up to contempt, ridicule, or scorn” (Pember, 691). Defamation is a broader, more encompassing term that includes both libel, which is published defamation, and slander, which is spoken defamation. In the case Gregory v. Gregory, plaintiffs Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory sue their brother, W. Patric Gregory III (“Patric Gregory”) for libel. The brothers are in a family business together called New Jersey Galvanizing and Tinning Works, Inc. (“NJG”), where one of the plaintiffs, Robert Gregory, is the president. A few years ago, the plaintiffs were involved in a dispute that did not include the defendant Patric Gregory. Siblings James Gregory, Mary Gregory O’Connor, Michael Gregory, and Elizabeth Gregory filed a complaint against Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory in order to keep shares for which President Robert Gregory issued a call notice, as well as alleging conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, shareholder oppression, and the taking of corporate opportunity. Although James, Mary, Michael, and Elizabeth were awarded about $1.5 million total for their shares in June 2013, the court held that Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory did not oppress their minority shareholders or engage in wrongdoing. In February 2014, the defendant, Patric Gregory, published and shared a binder to fifteen people in the Gregory family, including the plaintiffs and Michael, Mary, James, and Elizabeth, that explains his factual take on the earlier NJG stock redemption dispute (“the Binder”). The Binder describes statements that the plaintiffs believe are libelous due to their false nature. The defendant moved for the case to be dismissed because his statements are shielded by the “family relationships privilege”. The case closed in favor of the plaintiffs, where the Binder is found defamatory and libelous.

Key concepts the court focused on were the family relationship privilege, qualified privilege, and most importantly, libel. This is a notable case because the defendant and plaintiffs are not only business partners, but also family members, and New Jersey courts have never acknowledged a family relationship privilege. This allows the defendant to attempt the argument that his statements are protected under either the family relations privilege or qualified privilege. To start, the plaintiffs sufficiently establish libel. To adequately plead defamation in New Jersey, “[a plaintiff] must prove three essential facts: (1) that defendant[ ] made a false and defamatory statement concerning [plaintiffs]; (2) that the statement was communicated to another person (and not privileged); and (3) that defendant[ ] acted negligently or with actual malice.” G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 292-93 (N.J. 2011). In order to determine if it is a defamatory statement, the court can implement the Ollman Test from Ollman v. Evans, to find if it is a statement of fact or opinion. The elements of the Ollman Test include checking if the statement can be proved true or false, examining the common meaning of the words used, observing the social setting of the remark, and inspecting the journalistic context of the statement made. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, where Defendant Patric Gregory made defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory. The statements are considered libel because they were false, were maliciously published by the defendant to twelve people other than the plaintiffs, and identified the plaintiffs, thus, harming their reputation.

Defendant Patric Gregory maintains that the statements published in the Binder are protected under “a subset of the common-interest privilege that applies specifically to statements made by and between family members.” ECF No. 15 at 18. The defendant did recognize that New Jersey courts have not historically acknowledged a family relations privilege, yet argues for the court to do so since New Jersey recognizes a defense for private defamation claims is that the person was acting lawfully in order to protect his/her immediate family. Defendant Patric Gregory did not demonstrate the existence of a qualified “family relationships” privilege because there was insufficient evidence to conclude Patric’s reasoning for sharing the Binder with his family members was necessary. Therefore, the court dismissed the defendant’s motion for the New Jersey law to recognize his proposed family-relations privilege.

Since Defendant Patric Gregory argues that statements made in the Binder are protected under “a subset of the common-interest privilege,” ECF No. 15 at 18, the court treats the argument instead as a qualified privilege matter, rather than a “family relationships” privilege matter. Qualified privilege is recognized under New Jersey law as "a communication ‘made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contains criminatory matter which, without this privilege, would be slanderous and actionable." Professional Recovery Services, 642 F. Supp. 2d at 400. In order to assess if a qualified privilege exists, the New Jersey Court refers to "(1) the appropriateness of the occasion on which the defamatory information is published, (2) the legitimacy of the interest thereby sought to be protected or promoted, and (3) the pertinence of the receipt of that information by the recipient." Bainhauer, 215 N.J. Super, at 37. But, since the plaintiffs argued there are factual questions regarding the statements, the defendant would not be able to use the qualified privilege defense because he abused it. The defendant also did not adequately explain how his perspective had value for distributing the Binder to the plaintiffs or the twelve other siblings when he was not involved in the NJG stock redemption dispute.

In conclusion, the Defendant Patric Gregory committed defamation by purposefully and maliciously publishing false, reputation-harming statements about Plaintiffs Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory in the Binder to twelve other family members. The defendant could have argued that he had qualified privilege, but he failed to meet his burden.

Bibliography
Bainhauer v. Manoukian, 520 A. 2d 1154 - NJ: Appellate Div. (1987).
G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 292-93 (N.J. 2011).
Gregory v. Gregory, Cv. No. 15-00320 (D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2015).
Ollman v. Evans, 750 F. 2d 970 (1984).
Pember, Don R., and Clay Calvert. Mass Media Law. 19th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education, 2015. Print.