CLINT EASTWOOD V. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC.

By: Sabrina Rodriguez

CLINT EASTWOOD= PLAINTIFF If libel has been committed he has to prove…1.Publication2.Identification3.Defamation4.Falsity5.Fault

+ ACTUAL MALICE because he is a public figure (Eastwood is an actor/director/producer/musician/politician/etc.)

PUBLICATION? On December 21, 1993 an article was

written about Eastwood becoming a father again at the age of 63, by assistant editor Don Gentile for the...

National Enquirer which is an American supermarket tabloid magazineNational Enquirer, Inc. = Defendant

IDENTIFICATION? The article mentions… his name his relationship with actress Frances Fisher

a picture of their baby (Francesca Eastwood)

DEFAMATION? Injured Clint Eastwood’s reputation by suggesting to an ordinary reader or even to someone who just looks at the headlines of the magazine that he willingly talked to someone from the Enquirer His fans could think he is a hypocrite for giving the Enquirer an “exclusive interview” about his private life (plus access to an “exclusive” baby picture)… They could also think he is “washed up as a movie star” if he was trying to get publicity by a sensationalist magazine

FALSITY? Eastwood claims the whole article is false as he says never gave an interview to the Enquirer Goes through the chain of command to prove the article was false...

FAULT?The editors of the National Enquirer… Steve Plamann (article editor) called up Cameron Docherty (original source) Docherty said he “erased the tapes” of the interview and didn’t reveal the time or place the interview occurred

Plamann also called a former agent of Eastwood’s but happened not be in his office at the time so secretary answered and all she said was “we know Docherty”

and David Kendall (who does pre-publication reviews and approved it to be published)

7

ACTUAL MALICE? Magazine says “exclusive interview” with Eastwood 3 times (cover, inside the mag. and in the article itself) Including scene-setting phrases and quotes like “[Eastwood] said with a chuckle” suggested that he and the writer actually conversed Conveying the impression that Eastwood actually gave an interview with them is actual malice

8

CONCLUSION... 7 day trial and 4 days of deliberation Eastwood was awarded $150,000 Under Lanham Act and California law, Judge Davies awarded Eastwood $656,000 in attorney’s fee

9

KEY POINTS Do your research! Two phone calls is not enough to prove the

information you received is legitimate Make sure words like “exclusive” have the same meaning to you

as the court (Enquirer thought “exclusive” only meant “no one else is publishing this article in our market)

REFERENCES http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1004583.htmlhttp://www.ohmymag.com/clint-eastwood/wallpaperhttp://www.imdb.com/media/rm375295744/nm0004920http://www.ebay.com/itm/National-Enquirer-December-21-1993-Roseanne-Barr-Clint-Eastwood-Katey-Sagal-/281352787667

http://projectshanks.com/pretty-lady-of-the-day-francesca-eastwood/francesca-eastwood-3/

10