The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY July 25, 2019
2019COA115
No. 18CA1316, SG Interests I, Ltd. v. Kolbenschlag — Torts — Defamation — Libel
In this libel action, a division of the court of appeals holds that
defendant’s online comment to a newspaper article is substantially
true and, thus, that plaintiffs failed to prove the elements of
defamation. It further concludes that there was no basis for
plaintiffs to depose the defendant under C.R.C.P. 56(f). The division
remands the case for the district court to determine and award
reasonable appellate attorney fees. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2019COA115
Court of Appeals No. 18CA1316 Delta County District Court No. 17CV30026 Honorable Steven L. Schultz, Judge
SG Interests I, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and SG Interests VII, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Peter T. Kolbenschlag, a/k/a Pete Kolbenschlag,
Defendant-Appellee.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division VI Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE Fox and Welling, JJ., concur
Prior Opinion Announced June 27, 2019, WITHDRAWN
OPINION PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED AS “NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)” ON June 27, 2019, IS NOW DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Petition for Rehearing DENIED
Announced July 25, 2019
Abadie & Schill P.C., Andrew D. Schill, William E. Zimsky, Durango, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Ballard Spahr, LLP, Steven D. Zansberg, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant- Appellee ¶1 In this libel action, plaintiffs, SG Interests I, Ltd., and SG
Interests VII, Ltd., (collectively SGI) appeal the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for defendant, Peter T. Kolbenschlag,
also known as Pete Kolbenschlag. SGI challenges the court’s
findings that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s online comments were
substantially true and immaterial. It also challenges the court’s
refusal to order Mr. Kolbenschlag’s deposition under C.R.C.P. 56(f).
We affirm the court’s judgment and remand for the determination
and award of reasonable appellate attorney fees.
I. Background
A. Prior Federal Actions and Settlement
¶2 SGI and a competitor, Gunnison Energy Corporation (GEC),
separately acquired and developed oil and gas leases in the Ragged
Mountain Area of western Colorado. SGI focused its efforts on the
eastern side while GEC focused on the southern side. Eventually,
their interests collided and resulted in litigation between an SGI
affiliate and GEC in 2004. As part of settling this litigation, SGI
and GEC agreed to collaborate in developing the Ragged Mountain
Area.
1 ¶3 In 2005, SGI and GEC executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) concerning four leases offered by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) in which they agreed that only SGI
would submit a bid, and, if it won the bid, SGI would then assign
50% of the interest in the acquired leases to GEC. They further
agreed to establish a business plan to develop the leases within
ninety days of acquiring them.
¶4 SGI successfully bid on the four leases and certified that its
bid was calculated “independently and without collusion for the
purpose of restricting competition.” It then assigned a 50% interest
in the leases to GEC. After the assignment, SGI and GEC executed
additional agreements to share 50% of any oil and gas interests
acquired in the area at cost and to work together on permitting
pipelines to service the area.1 Neither SGI nor GEC informed the
BLM of these agreements.
¶5 In October 2009, a former vice president of GEC (relator) filed
a qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging that
1 The additional agreements include the Area of Mutual Interest Agreement (AMIA) and the Option and Participation Agreement (OPA), and they are not the subject of this litigation.
2 SGI and GEC had falsely certified to the BLM that the bids for the
leases did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1860 (2018), and that they were
not for the purpose of restricting competition. The relator had
drafted and executed all of the agreements on behalf of GEC.
¶6 The Department of Justice (DOJ) then initiated an
investigation into SGI’s bidding practices with respect to federal oil
and gas leases in the Ragged Mountain Area. It filed a complaint in
February 2012 against SGI and GEC alleging that the companies
had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by executing the MOU on
the eve of the auction and that, consequently, the United States had
received less revenue than it would have received had SGI and GEC
competitively bid for the leases. The DOJ offered to settle both the
Sherman Act violation and the FCA violation for $550,000 and
issued a press release stating:
The Department of Justice today announced that it has reached a settlement with Gunnison Energy Corporation (GEC), SG Interests I Ltd. and SG Interests VII Ltd. (SGI) that requires the companies to pay a total of $550,000 to the United States for antitrust and False Claims Act violations related to an agreement not to compete in bidding for four natural gas leases sold at auction by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Today’s action marks the
3 first time the Department of Justice has challenged an anticompetitive bidding agreement for mineral rights leases.
¶7 The government received seventy-six public comments, and on
December 12, 2012, a federal district court judge rejected the
proposed settlement, finding “[t]here is no basis for saying that the
approval of these settlements would act as a deterrence to these
defendants and others in the industry, particularly as GEC
considers ‘joint bidding’ to be common in the industry.” The court
concluded “the settlement of this civil action for nothing more than
the nuisance value of this litigation is not in the public interest.”
¶8 The parties then reached a second proposed settlement, which
required SGI and GEC to each pay $275,000 in the Sherman Act
case and SGI to pay $206,250 and GEC pay $245,000 in the FCA
case. It also required SGI and GEC to provide advance notice to the
government of any intention to bid for future leases with another
company for a period of five years.
¶9 The agreement also stated that “[t]he United States contends
that it has certain civil claims against SG arising from the Covered
Conduct” and “[t]his Settlement Agreement is neither an admission
of liability by SG nor a concession by the United States that its
4 claims are not well founded.” It also declared that the parties had
entered the settlement agreement “[t]o avoid the delay, uncertainty,
inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation.”
¶ 10 The DOJ’s motion for entry of final judgment stated:
The revised settlements constitute meaningful relief that compensate the United States for damages it incurred as a result of the alleged antitrust violations, serve as a deterrent to these Defendants from engaging in joint bidding that violates the antitrust laws, and put others in the industry on notice that such anticompetitive conduct will not be tolerated.
The DOJ explained that the antitrust suit was an issue of first
impression and that it wanted to quickly resolve the litigation to
“deter others from crossing the line from appropriate to illegal joint
bidding at BLM auctions” and specifically to deter SGI and GEC
from crossing this line in the future. It acknowledged that the AMIA
and OPA agreements did not violate the Sherman Act because those
agreements involved “a collaboration through which pro-competitive
efficiencies arise.” However, it found that the MOU “reflected a
deviation from common industry practice, as the MOU was merely a
naked restraint that allowed Defendants to avoid a bidding war.”
And the DOJ noted that under this second proposed settlement
5 agreement, “SGI and GEC will have paid more than twelve times
their original cost of acquisition of the four parcels,” an amount
exceeding actual damages. It acknowledged that the charges were
not proven at trial and that “[t]he monetary amount is a product of
settlement and accounts for litigation risk and costs.”
¶ 11 The federal district court judge accepted this second proposed
settlement on April 23, 2013. Thereafter, numerous publications
reported that SGI had paid a fine to the federal government, and
several stated that the fine was for violating antitrust laws. See,
e.g., Jon B. Dubrow, Natural Gas Companies Settle Antitrust Suit
Stemming from Joint Bidding, Nat’l L. Rev. (Apr. 28, 2013) (noting
that SGI and GEC “will each pay a fine of $275,000 to the DOJ to
settle allegations of agreeing not to bid against each other in
violation of antitrust law”); infra Part II.B n.2. SGI never brought a
defamation action against these commentators.
B. Current Litigation
¶ 12 Mr. Kolbenschlag is an environmental activist from Paonia,
Colorado, who manages Mountain West Strategies, Ltd., a website
that “specializes in public outreach and community engagement” in
western Colorado. In 2016, the BLM cancelled eighteen of SGI’s gas
6 leases in Colorado. The Glenwood Springs Post Independent
newspaper published an article about the cancellation. John
Stroud, Divide Lease Decision Likely to Land in Court, Glenwood
Springs Post Independent, Nov. 28, 2016, https://perma.cc/6WM9-
GK9J. The article discussed how SGI vowed to take legal action
“based on evidence it says points to collusion between the Obama
administration and environmental interests to reach a
‘predetermined political decision.’” Id.
¶ 13 Mr. Kolbenschlag posted a reader comment to the article on
the newspaper’s website in which he noted the irony of SGI’s
collusion allegation and stated:
While SGI alleges “collusion” let us recall that it, SGI, was actually fined for colluding (with GEC) to rig bid prices and rip off American taxpayers. Yes, these two companies owned by billionaires thought it appropriate to pad their portfolios at the expense of you and I and every other hard-working American.
The comment included a link to the DOJ press release describing
the first settlement agreement for antitrust and FCA violations
related to anticompetitive bidding by SGI and GEC.
¶ 14 Four months later, SGI filed this lawsuit. Mr. Kolbenschlag
filed a motion to dismiss, contending that his comment was
7 substantially true and that SGI had not pleaded actual malice.
After SGI filed an amended complaint, Mr. Kolbenschlag renewed
his motion to dismiss. The district court converted the motion to
one for summary judgment under C.R.C.P. 56 and set an expedited
briefing schedule. Mr. Kolbenschlag then withdrew the portion of
his motion seeking judgment on actual malice. Thereafter, SGI filed
a response and sought leave to take Mr. Kolbenschlag’s deposition
under C.R.C.P. 56(f) concerning his factual basis for stating the
comments were substantially true.
¶ 15 The district court granted the motion for summary judgment,
denied SGI’s request to depose Mr. Kolbenschlag, and in a separate
hearing not at issue here, awarded Mr. Kolbenschlag attorney fees
finding that the lawsuit was frivolous and vexatious. This appeal
followed.
II. Summary Judgment Properly Granted
¶ 16 SGI first contends that the district court erroneously
concluded that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s comments were substantially
true and immaterial. We disagree.
8 A. Standard of Review and Law
¶ 17 We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Morrison v.
Goff, 91 P.3d 1050, 1052 (Colo. 2004); SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat’l
Bank, 111 P.3d 563, 564 (Colo. App. 2005). Summary judgment is
a drastic remedy and is appropriate only when the pleadings and
the supporting documents show that no genuine issue of material
fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. W. Elk Ranch, L.L.C. v. United States, 65 P.3d 479,
481 (Colo. 2002).
¶ 18 A “material fact” is one that will affect the outcome of the case
or claim. Thompson v. Md. Cas. Co., 84 P.3d 496, 501 (Colo. 2004).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we
consider “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any.”
C.R.C.P. 56(c). All favorable inferences that can be drawn from the
record must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. People in
Interest of S.N., 2014 CO 64, ¶¶ 15-16.
¶ 19 “Defamation is a communication that holds an individual up
to contempt or ridicule thereby causing him to incur injury or
damage.” Lawson v. Stow, 2014 COA 26, ¶ 15 (quoting Keohane v.
9 Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293, 1297 (Colo. 1994)). “A statement may be
defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to
lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third
persons from associating or dealing with him.” Sky Fun 1 v.
Schuttloffel, 27 P.3d 361, 369 n.3 (Colo. 2001) (alteration omitted)
(quoting Burns v. McGraw-Hill Broad. Co., 659 P.2d 1351, 1357
(Colo. 1983)).
¶ 20 The elements of defamation are:
(1) a defamatory statement concerning another; (2) published to a third party; (3) with fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special damages or the existence of special damages to the plaintiff caused by the publication.
McIntyre v. Jones, 194 P.3d 519, 523-24 (Colo. App. 2008) (quoting
Williams v. Dist. Court, 866 P.2d 908, 911 n.4 (Colo. 1993)).
¶ 21 Substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation. Gordon
v. Boyles, 99 P.3d 75, 81 (Colo. App. 2004). A defendant need only
show that “the substance, the gist, the sting of the matter is true.”
Id. (citation omitted). So, the question is whether “there is a
substantial difference between the allegedly libelous statement and
10 the truth; or, stated differently whether the statement produces a
different effect upon the reader than that which would be produced
by the literal truth of the matter.” Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo.
232, 236, 504 P.2d 337, 339 (1972). This inquiry focuses on an
“average reader” and asks whether “the challenged statement
produces a different effect upon the [average] reader than that
which would be produced by the literal truth of the matter.” Fry v.
Lee, 2013 COA 100, ¶ 23.
¶ 22 In Colorado, the plaintiff in a defamation case must prove that
a statement is false and material. Bustos v. A & E Television
Networks, 646 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 2011) (applying Colorado
law). To be material, “the alleged misstatement must be likely to
cause reasonable people to think ‘significantly less favorably’ about
the plaintiff than they would if they knew the truth; a misstatement
is not actionable if the comparative harm to the plaintiff’s
reputation is real but only modest.” Id. at 765 (citation omitted).
¶ 23 Because “protracted litigation could have a chilling effect upon
constitutionally protected rights of free speech,” it is appropriate to
“prompt[ly] resolv[e] . . . defamation actions . . . by summary
11 judgment.” Barnett v. Denver Publ’g Co., 36 P.3d 145, 147 (Colo.
App. 2001).
B. Application
¶ 24 SGI asserts that the comment, “was actually fined for
colluding (with GEC) to rig bid prices and rip off American
taxpayers,” was not substantially true because (1) it had settled the
antitrust suit for nuisance value; (2) the claims had not proceeded
to trial; (3) there were no actual findings of illegal conduct; (4) the
DOJ had expressed concerns about its ability to succeed at trial;
and (5) SGI did not admit any wrongdoing and, therefore, any
statement that it was “fined for colluding” was materially false. We
are not persuaded.
¶ 25 First, we reject SGI’s claim that it settled the case for nuisance
value. The record shows that the federal judge rejected the first
settlement agreement precisely because it reflected a nuisance
value settlement that would not deter the parties or others in the
industry from engaging in illegal bidding. The federal judge
concluded that a nuisance value settlement was not in the public
interest.
12 ¶ 26 Moreover, the DOJ explained its reasons for settling: (1)
stating that this was an issue of first impression; (2) proving the
claim would be costly; (3) settling would compensate the
government for the violations by reimbursing it more money than it
lost at auction; and (4) settling would deter SGI, GEC, and other
companies from executing these illegal agreements. And the record
reveals that SGI and GEC paid twelve times the cost of the four
leases subject to the antitrust claim, an amount that directly
refutes SGI’s claim that the payment was simply a business
decision and the amount paid was for nuisance value.
¶ 27 Next, we are not persuaded that the absence of a trial requires
a different result or that the record shows there was no improper
conduct. Initially, we note that SGI does not dispute that it
executed the MOU with GEC on the eve of the auction and that it
did not disclose the MOU to the BLM. While we acknowledge that
the FCA agreement states the agreement is not an admission of
liability by SGI, importantly, it also states that it is not a concession
by the United States that its claims are not well founded. Moreover,
the agreement specifically provides that “[n]othing in this
Agreement releases SG from any liability for the Covered Conduct
13 under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.” And
paragraph six of the agreement lists ten separate claims from which
SGI was not released. Finally, the agreement required SGI to waive
and not assert any defenses it may have to any future criminal
prosecution or administrative action.
¶ 28 As well, the antitrust settlement specifically addressed the
wrongful conduct by declaring up front that “the United States
determined that SGI’s and GEC’s agreement to bid jointly pursuant
to the MOU constituted a per se violation of the Sherman Act.” It
also addressed the companies’ defenses, stating that
[t]he United States determined that [SGI’s] purported . . . defense amounted to little more than a contention that by successfully colluding under the MOU at the February and May 2005 auctions, the Defendants eventually learned to overcome their mutual distrust. However, the mere hope that parties might someday come to an understanding on terms of a legitimate venture does not justify their agreeing to a naked restraint of trade in the interim.
¶ 29 Moreover, the antitrust agreement set forth “punishment”
related to the improper bidding — not only the monetary damages
SGI and GEC had to pay, but also the further requirement that
“GEC and SGI agree to provide thirty days advance notice to the
14 United States of any joint bidding, either between themselves or
with another party, at a BLM auction. Upon the United States’
request, each must provide additional information to the United
States regarding its plans to bid jointly.”
¶ 30 As well, the DOJ explained its reasoning for not proceeding to
trial in the antitrust case, which had nothing to do with the
strength of its case or the absence of misconduct. Instead it
explained that
[t]he improper joint bidding by Defendants occurred nearly eight years ago and since that time they have been engaged in a legitimate venture that has resulted in substantial development of the Ragged Mountain Area. . . . [T]he goal of a civil antitrust remedy is to terminate the violation, undo its effects and, in cases where the United States is the injured party, obtain compensation for its injury.
¶ 31 Accordingly, we conclude that viewing the evidence favorably
for SGI and GEC, Mr. Kolbenschlag’s comment that SGI and GEC
“colluded to rig bid prices,” as understood by the average reader, is
substantially true and is well supported by the record. See Gomba,
180 Colo. at 236, 504 P.2d at 339; see also Brokers’ Choice of Am.,
Inc. v NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10th Cir. 2017)
(“The law of defamation overlooks inaccuracies and focuses on
15 substantial truth.” (quoting Schwarz v. Am. Coll. of Emergency
Physicians, 215 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir. 2000))); Fry, ¶¶ 39-40
(concluding that “caught up in plagiarism charge” was substantially
true because the plain language would not lead an average reader
to conclude that criminal charges were brought against the
plaintiff); see also Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
https://perma.cc/TGU7-9M69 (defining colluding as “to work
together secretly especially in order to do something illegal or
dishonest”).
¶ 32 Finally, we are not persuaded that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s use of
the word “actually fined” requires a different result. The word “fine”
means “a sum imposed as punishment for an offense” or “a
forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/6792-KGWE; see
also Knapp v. Post Printing & Publ’g Co., 111 Colo. 492, 497-98, 114
P.2d 981, 984 (1943) (the meaning of an allegedly defamatory
statement is determined by the plain and ordinary meaning of the
word). Given that SGI and GEC paid twelve times the amount of
the government’s actual damages to settle the antitrust and FCA
claims, we have little difficulty concluding that an average reader
16 would find no substantial difference between SGI settling civil
claims brought against it for money and paying a fine. Indeed,
many commentators described this payment as a fine for alleged
misdeeds at the time of the settlement, and SGI does not explain
why it did not pursue defamation claims against those
commentators at that time. 2
¶ 33 Even if we were to conclude that the “gist” of the comment was
false, we agree with the district court that any inaccuracy is
immaterial. See Bustos, 646 F.3d at 764 (“Where truth was once
2 While many of the articles described SGI’s conduct as “alleged,” many did not. For example, one article stated that “the companies were implicated for a 2005 collusion scheme” and “[t]he two companies were found to have conspired to buy federal leases for lower prices.” Competition Policy International, US: Gas Cos Agree to Even Steeper Penalty, Fine Nearly Doubled, Apr. 22, 2013, https://perma.cc/MF2D-EN7V. A Durango Herald newspaper article stated that SGI and GEC “agreed to pay a $550,000 fine to settle an antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department for agreeing not to compete in a 2005 auction of drilling rights in Western Colorado.” Joe Hanel, Driller Starts Super PAC to Support Tipton, Durango Herald, Oct. 28, 2012, https://perma.cc/PD68-22AG. And a Crested Butte News article reporting on the settlement titled the article “North Fork gas drillers fined by feds for collusion.” North Fork Gas Drillers Fined by Feds for Collusion, Crested Butte News, Feb. 22, 2012, https://perma.cc/ME47-46DW. Although this article later stated that the parties settled the federal antitrust lawsuit “alleging the two companies cooperated in submitting winning bids,” id., the title of the article is almost identical to Mr. Kolbenschlag’s statement.
17 strictly a defense, now the plaintiff must shoulder the burden in his
case-in-chief of proving the falsity of a challenged statement if he is
a public figure or the statement involves a matter of public
concern.”). Mr. Kolbenschlag’s comment included a link to the DOJ
press release stating that the settlement “requires the companies to
pay a total of $550,000 to the United States for antitrust and False
Claims Act violations related to an agreement not to compete in
bidding for four natural gas leases sold at auction by the U.S.
Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).”
(Emphasis added.) We conclude that the press release’s “pay for
antitrust and False Claims Act violations” language and Mr.
Kolbenschlag’s “fined for colluding” comment are virtually
indistinguishable. And, if a reasonable person knew all of the
undisputed facts apart from the comment, including the DOJ’s
reasons for settling, the federal district court’s rejection of the first
nuisance value settlement, and the additional requirement that SGI
inform the DOJ of future joint bidding agreements, Mr.
Kolbenschlag’s statement is not “likely to cause reasonable people
to think ‘significantly less favorably’ about the plaintiff than they
would if they knew the truth.” Bustos, 646 F.3d at 764-65 (citation
18 omitted); Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 429 F. Supp. 2d 165, 177 n.8
(D.D.C. 2006) (explaining that an allegedly defamatory statement
was clarified by two internet links and “[w]hat little confusion the
sentence could possibly cause is easily dispelled by any reader
willing to perform minimal research”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and
remanded, 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
¶ 34 We are not persuaded that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s comment that
SGI was actually fined is problematic when compared to other
articles describing a fine for allegations for the reasons described
above. The undisputed record demonstrates that SGI paid twelve
times the actual amount of damages to settle two civil claims
related to its illegal bidding practices in the MOU and that it agreed
to additional restrictions to its bidding practices in future joint
bidding ventures. Therefore, the absence of the word “alleged” is
immaterial and does not affect the substantial truth of the
comment.
III. Deposition Would Not Alter the Outcome
¶ 35 SGI next contends that the district court erroneously denied
its discovery request to depose Mr. Kolbenschlag. It reasons that a
deposition would shed light on whether Mr. Kolbenschlag could
19 validate his claim that the comment was substantially true.
Because we conclude that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s subjective belief is
not relevant, and because SGI has failed to allege any additional
facts it could have discovered through a deposition, we discern no
abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the request.
A. Standard of Review and Law
¶ 36 “Whether to grant a request for discovery pursuant to C.R.C.P.
56(f) lies within the discretion of the trial court.” A-1 Auto Repair &
Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardy, 93 P.3d 598, 604 (Colo. App. 2004). A
district court abuses its discretion when it refuses to grant a party a
reasonable continuance to permit utilization of the discovery
procedures provided by the rules of civil procedure and when it is
premature to grant a motion for summary judgment. Holland v. Bd.
of Cty. Comm’rs, 883 P.2d 500, 508 (Colo. App. 1994). However,
“[i]t is not an abuse of discretion to deny a C.R.C.P. 56(f) request if
the movant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed discovery is
necessary and could produce facts that would preclude summary
judgment.” A-1 Auto Repair, 93 P.3d at 604.
20 B. Application
¶ 37 The district court found that SGI had failed to articulate how
Mr. Kolbenschlag’s deposition would reveal facts that could change
the outcome. See id. Indeed, it found that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s
deposition was irrelevant to the objective question whether his
comment was substantially true; that actual malice (the subjective
issue) was no longer part of the litigation; and that Mr.
Kolbenschlag had no personal, special, or unique knowledge of the
prior litigation that would cause him to know more about the
substantial truth of it. We discern no abuse of discretion in the
court’s finding for two reasons.
¶ 38 First, Mr. Kolbenschlag’s subjective reasons for the comment
have no bearing on the question whether a reasonable person
would find his comment substantially true or materially false. This
is particularly so since the burden of proving material falsity is on
the plaintiff. See Brokers’ Choice of Am., 861 F.3d at 1110 (applying
Colorado law). SGI’s assertion that the deposition would “determine
any objective criteria upon which he can validate that his statement
was substantially true” is illogical and misconstrues both the
burden and the objective standard applicable to defamation. And,
21 because actual malice was not an issue for summary judgment, Mr.
Kolbenschlag’s reasons for making the comment are simply
irrelevant. Even assuming he acted out of malice or had no reason
to believe the truth of what he said, his subjective intent is
irrelevant to whether the comment itself was substantially true.
See Fry, ¶ 34 (explaining that the substantial truth test requires a
court to determine “how the publication would have been
understood by a reasonable or average law reader”) (emphasis
added).
¶ 39 Second, nothing in the records shows that Mr. Kolbenschlag
had any special or unique knowledge of the prior litigation. SGI
argues that Mr. Kolbenschlag may have followed the litigation
closely because he worked on issue campaigns and some of the
commenters in the antitrust litigation had “endorsed” his LinkedIn
page. These assertions are speculative. And, even if proven, they
are irrelevant to the issue whether the comment itself is
substantially true. Because Mr. Kolbenschlag’s comment does not
constitute defamation, his intent in making it is irrelevant; thus, we
affirm the district court’s order denying SGI’s deposition request.
22 IV. Appellate Attorney Fees
¶ 40 Relying on C.A.R. 38(d) and 39.1, Mr. Kolbenschlag asks us to
award him attorney fees and costs on appeal. He contends that
SGI’s appeal is groundless, frivolous, and vexatious. We agree that
the appeal is groundless and frivolous and, therefore, we do not
need to consider whether it is vexatious.
¶ 41 In any civil action, a court shall award “reasonable attorney
fees against any attorney or party who has brought or defended a
civil action, either in whole or in part, that the court determines
lacked substantial justification.” § 13-17-102(2), C.R.S. 2018.
¶ 42 Appeals can be frivolous in two ways: (1) they may be frivolous
as filed where the judgment by the court below is so plainly correct
and the legal authority contrary to appellant’s position so clear that
there is really no appealable issue; or (2) an appeal may be frivolous
as argued where the appellant commits misconduct in arguing the
appeal. Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 COA 10, ¶ 40.
“Standards for determining whether an appeal is frivolous should
be directed toward penalizing egregious conduct . . . .” Mission
Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363, 365 (Colo. 1984). C.A.R. 38(d)
should, therefore, only be used to impose sanctions in clear and
23 unequivocal cases when the appellant presents no rational
argument, or when the appeal is prosecuted for the sole purpose of
harassment or delay. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. Howard, 862 P.2d
925, 934-35 (Colo. 1993); Mission Denver Co., 674 P.2d at 365-66.
¶ 43 We begin with SGI’s appeal of the second issue — the court’s
refusal to order Mr. Kolbenschlag’s deposition — and conclude that
it is frivolous because there is no proper legal basis for SGI’s
argument. See Mitchell v. Ryder, 104 P.3d 316, 323 (Colo. App.
2004) (“An appeal is frivolous if the proponent can present no
rational argument based on the evidence and law or the appeal is
prosecuted for the sole purpose of harassment or delay.”). Once Mr.
Kolbenschlag withdrew his actual malice argument, his subjective
belief in the truth of his comment was plainly irrelevant. We
therefore discern no basis in law or in fact for SGI to pursue an
appeal of that ruling.
¶ 44 SGI asserts repeatedly that Mr. Kolbenschlag’s deposition was
relevant because he “may have had knowledge regarding the
underlying federal litigation and its eventual outcome.” It argues
that Mr. Kolbenschlag “is not a random person” but is “a seasoned
media professional and the owner of” an issue group. And it asserts
24 that Mr. Kolbenschlag knew some of the individuals that
commented on the initial settlement agreement because they had
“endorsed the Defendant on LinkedIn” and therefore he may have
“provided assistance or advice to some commenters.” However, as
described above, Mr. Kolbenschlag’s subjective reasons for
commenting on the news article are simply irrelevant to whether his
comment was substantially true.
¶ 45 For similar reasons, we award appellate attorney fees for the
libel claim. SGI’s claim on appeal that its settlement was purely a
“business decision” for “nuisance value” and that it did not engage
in misconduct is directly refuted by the undisputed record. These
undisputed facts are
• SGI and GEC competed for oil and gas leases.
• SGI and GEC executed the MOU agreeing not to compete
against each other for four leases.
• SGI and GEC never disclosed the MOU to the BLM.
• Representatives from both SGI and GEC attended the
auction where SGI secured the successful bid.
• The successful bids were less than market value.
25 • SGI conveyed 50% of the leases to GEC after the bidding
process.
• Emails among GEC executives congratulated themselves
on avoiding a bidding war with SGI by way of the
undisclosed MOU.
• A GEC executive brought a federal qui tam action alleging
illegal collusion between SGI and GEC in the MOU and
SGI’s false certification that there had been no bid
rigging.
• The DOJ concluded the MOU constituted a per se
restraint of trade, violated section 1 of the Sherman Act,
and commenced an antitrust lawsuit.
• A federal judge rejected the first settlement proposal
concluding it was for nuisance value, provided
insufficient deterrence to the parties and others in the
industry, and, thus, was not in the public interest.
• The settlement entered required SGI and GEC to pay
twelve times the amount of damages actually incurred
and required them to give the government advance notice
of any proposed joint bidding practices for five years.
26 ¶ 46 Because the overwhelming record refutes SGI’s libel claims, we
conclude there is no reasonable basis for it. See § 13-17-102(2)
(attorney fees proper where the court determines a party “lacked
substantial justification”). Accordingly, we order that attorney fees
be awarded jointly and severally against SGI and its counsel. § 13-
17-102(3). We exercise our discretion under C.A.R. 39.1 to remand
the case to the district court for a determination and award of
reasonable appellate attorney fees.
V. Conclusion
¶ 47 The judgment is affirmed, and the case is remanded for the
district court to determine and award reasonable appellate attorney
fees.
JUDGE FOX and JUDGE WELLING concur.