Delbert Gray v. Norman Udevitz, and Denver Post, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendants
656 F.2d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
Facts
Delbert Gray, a former police officer, sued Norman Udevitz and the Denver Post for libel over an article alleging Gray admitted to state agents that he used and sold heroin and leaked information while a policeman. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Gray was a public official and failed to show actual malice. Gray appealed, arguing he was not a public official and that the court erred in denying further discovery before ruling on summary judgment.
Issue
The primary issues were whether Delbert Gray, a former police officer, qualified as a "public official" for purposes of a libel claim, and whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without allowing Gray additional discovery.
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Gray was a public official and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery. Gray failed to present evidence of actual malice or properly request a continuance for discovery under Rule 56(f).
Rule
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public officials must prove "actual malice" to recover for defamation, and street-level police officers are considered public officials due to their authority and public interest. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires a party opposing summary judgment to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial or explain why they cannot, and tactical delays in discovery are not grounds to overturn summary judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.