Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

Tenth Circuit

Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

95 F.3d 32, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2375, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22630, 1996 WL 490701

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1996

Docket95-5152

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 F.3d 32 (Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 95 F.3d 32, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2375, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22630, 1996 WL 490701 (10th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

*33 TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Robert G. Tilton sued Capital Cities/ABC, Ine., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ABC News, Inc., and several employees of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., for libel and false invasion of privacy arising out of the broadcast of two television programs in 1991 and 1992. All defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits of Tilton’s claims, and corporate defendants Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., and ABC News, Inc., separately moved for summary judgment on the additional ground that Tilton could not establish a basis for imputing liability to them.

During the course of the proceedings, the district court denied Tilton’s motion to compel defendants to disclose the identity of confidential sources. In addition, the court granted both the defendants’ motion in li-mine concerning the newsperson’s privilege and their motion to exclude the testimony of Tilton’s expert linguist. On May 24, 1995, the district court granted the motion of defendants Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., and ABC News, Ine., on the ground that neither entity had been involved in the preparation or broadcast of the programs. On June 19, 1995, the district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants.

Tilton appeals, arguing that the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment to defendants on the merits of his claims, (2) granting defendants’ motion asserting the newsperson’s privilege, and (3) excluding the testimony of his expert linguist. After careful review of the record, we adopt the analysis of the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court and ORDER that the court’s orders of June 19,1995 (concerning the merits), May 24, 1995 (concerning defendants’ motion in limine), and May 26, 1995 (concerning the testimony of the expert linguist) be published.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*33 TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Robert G. Tilton sued Capital Cities/ABC, Ine., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ABC News, Inc., and several employees of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., for libel and false invasion of privacy arising out of the broadcast of two television programs in 1991 and 1992. All defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits of Tilton’s claims, and corporate defendants Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., and ABC News, Inc., separately moved for summary judgment on the additional ground that Tilton could not establish a basis for imputing liability to them.

During the course of the proceedings, the district court denied Tilton’s motion to compel defendants to disclose the identity of confidential sources. In addition, the court granted both the defendants’ motion in li-mine concerning the newsperson’s privilege and their motion to exclude the testimony of Tilton’s expert linguist. On May 24, 1995, the district court granted the motion of defendants Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., and ABC News, Ine., on the ground that neither entity had been involved in the preparation or broadcast of the programs. On June 19, 1995, the district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants.

Tilton appeals, arguing that the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment to defendants on the merits of his claims, (2) granting defendants’ motion asserting the newsperson’s privilege, and (3) excluding the testimony of his expert linguist. After careful review of the record, we adopt the analysis of the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the district court and ORDER that the court’s orders of June 19,1995 (concerning the merits), May 24, 1995 (concerning defendants’ motion in limine), and May 26, 1995 (concerning the testimony of the expert linguist) be published.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F.3d 32, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2375, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22630, 1996 WL 490701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilton-v-capital-citiesabc-inc-ca10-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack