杏十八新茶分享

 

Yeager v. Bowlin

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 09-10-2012
  • Case #: 10-15297
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Tashima for the Court; Circuit Judges B. Fletcher and Reinhardt

Under California law, a statement is not "republished" on a website unless "the statement itself is substantively altered or added to" or "the website is directed to a new audience."

Retired General Charles E. Yeager brought eleven claims against Ed and Connie Bowlin under California鈥檚 statutory right to publicity, California鈥檚 common law right to privacy and violations of the Lanham Act. Yeager did not recall answers to approximately 185 questions during his deposition. Yeager filed a declaration that provided facts and answered questions he could not answer during his deposition. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Bowlins and held that Yeager鈥檚 declaration was a sham and disregarded it. Yeager contended his declaration was not a sham. The Ninth Circuit found that disregarding the declaration under the sham affidavit rule was not an abuse of discretion by the district court. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that it was implausible, because of the extreme number of questions Yeager could not answer, that Yeager could have refreshed his recollection by reviewing documents for his submitted declaration, when during his deposition exhibits were offered to him and were unsuccessful for helping him refresh his recollection. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court conclusion that no juror would believe Yeager鈥檚 ability to suddenly remember the answers to crucial questions that were central to his lawsuit. Also, Yeager contended that the Bowlins 鈥渞epublished鈥 on their website statements about him under California鈥檚 single-publication rule and therefore restarted the statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit held that on a website a statement is not republished under California law unless the 鈥渟tatement itself is substantively altered or added to鈥 or 鈥渢he website is directed to a new audience.鈥 The Ninth Circuit found that the statements regarding Yeager were not 鈥渞epublished鈥 because the Bowlins edited other parts of the website and left the statements alone. Therefore, just because the Bowlins continually hosted Yeager鈥檚 statements on their website does not make them republished. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top