Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 110

Statement of Undisputed Fact re: 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING COUNTS by Lee Enterprises Incorporated filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. (Smith, Jeffrey)

Jeffrey B. Smith

GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman Street . P. O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807-7909
Telephone [phone]
Telefax &0O 523-2595
j [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

IN THE LTNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TFIE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

Cause No. CV-1 I -064-M-DWM

Plaintiff,

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF IIAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES. INC.. and BOONE
KARLBERG P.C.,

DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES,
INC.'S STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SI.'MMARY
JTIDGMENT ON REMAINING
COUNTS

Defendants.
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a), Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee

Enterprises"), submits the following Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support

of

its Motion for Summary Judgment On Remaining Counts.

l.

In May or June of 2009, Spreadbury met with Ms. Nansu Roddy

("Roddy") at the Bitterroot Public Library ("Library"). (2nd Amend. Compl. if 3l
(Aug. 10. 201I ) (Dkt. 90).

t058268

2.

The purpose of the meeting was to admit a letter written by another

person on the reserve shelf of the library. Dkt. 90 at fl 31.

3.
4.

1t

Roddy, on behalf of the Library, refused to admit the letter. Dkt. 90 at

After numerous interactions with Library staff, Spreadbury was banned

32.

from the Library. Dkt. 90 at'lffl 33-35.

5.

After being banned from the Library, witnesses reported to local law

enforcement that Spreadbury retumed to the Library property. Dkt. 90

6.

atll\43-46.

Spreadbury was subsequently charged with criminal trespass. Dkt. 90

atlt 46.

7.

The Ravalli Republic, a newspaper owned by Lee Enterprises,

published articles stemming from the criminal trespass charges. Dkt. 90 at tlfl 17,

49,52.

8.

The articles were republished by other Montana newspapers affiliated

with Lee Enterprises, including the Missoulian Dkt. 90 atnn 16,52.

9.

However, none of the articles contained personal opinions from the

reporters, but, instead, were based purely on official Ravalli County Court

documents. Dld. 57-1, Ex.

A: Aff.

Stacey Mueller tf 3 (June 20,2011).

10. Around this same time period, Spreadbury was verbally abusive to
Ravalli Republic staff at the Ravalli Republic offices located at 232 Main Street,

Hamilton, Montana. As a consequence, Spreadbury is not allowed inthe Ravalli
Republic offices. Spreadbury has been personally notified, along with the Sheriffs
Department, that he is not allowed in the Ravalli Republic offices because of his
past abusive behavior. Dkt. 5711

.

l, Ex. A at tlfl 4-6; Dkt.

90 at lffl 38-39.

On September 10,2009, the Ravalli Republic published an article

detailing the trespass charges brought against Spreadbury. Dkt. 90 at fl 49; Dkt.
57-1, Ex.

B:

12.

Sept. 10,2009, Ravalli Republic wticle.

The article was entitled, "Mayoral candidate charged with trespass,"

and included a picture of Spreadbury. Dkt. 90

atl 49 Dkt. 57- I, Ex. B.

13. The Ravalli Republic publishes their articles on its website, and allows
readers to make comments on the articles. Dkt. 84-1 at $ 3.

14.

The September 10, 2009 article was published onthe Ravalli Republic

website. Dkt. 90 at'tl 50; Dkt. 84-l at t| 5; Foundational Aff. Jeffrey B. Smith, Exs.

A-B (Sept. 27,201l) ("Aff. Smith").

15.

A third party on-line reader published

a comment on the September 10,

2009 article; stating Spreadbury "suffers serious psychological problems and needs

to seek help." Dkt. 90 at tl 50; Dkt. 84- I ; Aff. Smith, Exs. A-B.

16.

A third party on-line reader published another comment on the

September 10, 2009 article, stating "Spreadbury is ready for Warmsprings." Dkt.
90 at fl

t058268

5l; Dkt. 84-l

at u 5;

Aff. Smith, Exs. A-B.

17. The Ravalli Republic did not encourage, create, or otherwise develop
the comments. Dkt. 84-l at ll 6.

18. The Ravalli Reoublic has not altered or otherwise edited the comments.
Dkt. 84-l at ti7.

19. While Spreadbury's criminal frespass charges were pending,
Spreadbury approached Roddy outside the Library and, as a result ofthe
encounter, Roddy sought and obtained an Order ofProtection against Spreadbury.

Dkt. 57-1, Ex. D: relevant orders in Ravalli County Cause No. DV-10-93.

20.

Based upon Spreadbury's encounter with Roddy, felony intimidation

charges were brought against Spreadbury. Both the Missoulian newspaper and the

Ravalli Republic published articles regarding the intimidation charges brought
against Spreadbury. Dkt. 57-1, Ex.

E: Nov. 10,2009, Missoulian article, Ex, F:

Nov. I l, 2009, Ravalli Republic article.

21.

Subsequently, the Missoulian and the Ravalli Republic published

arlicles regarding Spreadbury's initial appearance for the intimidation charges.

Dkt. 57-1, Ex. G: Dec. 3,2009, Missoulian article, Ex. H: Dec. 4,2009, Ravalli
Republic article.

22.

On February 18, 2010, based on proofbeyond a reasonable doubt, a

jury in the City Court for the City of Hamilton found Spreadbury guilty of criminal
trespass. Spreadbury appealed the conviction.

1058268

Dk.

57-1, Ex.

I:

Feb. 18, 2010,

City Court, City of Hamilton Verdict & Feb. 18, 2010, Sentencing Or.

23.

On February 22,2010,the Ravalli Repr.rbllc published an article

regarding Spreadbury being found guilty ofthe criminal trespass charges. Dkt. 571, Ex.

J:

Feb. 22,2010, Ravalli Republic articles.

24.

In May 2010, Spreadbury filed amended Complaints in separate suits

against Roddy, a Library employee, Angela Wetzsteon, and George Corn,
employees for Ravalli County, and Kenneth Bell, employee for the City

of

Hamilton. Dkt. l2-2: Ex. B: Amend. Compl., Cause No. DY-10-224; Dkt. 12-3:
Ex.

C: Amend. Compl.,

Cause No. DY-10-223;

Aff. Smith, Ex. C: Amend.

Compl., Cause No. DV-10-222.

25.

The Defendants filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment and

Judge Larson heard oral argument regarding the motions on August 6, 2010.

Smith, Ex.

D:

Aff.

Transcr. Proceedings, Cause No. DV-10-222 (Aug. 6, 2010); Ex. E:

Transcr. Proceedings, Cause No. DY-10-223 (Aug. 6, 2010); Ex.

F:

Transcr.

Proceedings, Cause No. DY-10-224 (Aug. 6,2010).

26.

During the hearing on the County's Motion for Summary Judgment,

the County's attomey argued, among other things, that Spreadbury's claim

of

emotional distress was without merit because the Defendant had prosecutorial

immunity. Aff. Smith, Ex. D at 3:16.

27.

t05826E

In response, Spreadbury argued prosecutorial immunity did not cover

the County attomeys because of the nature of the office's actions, stating
see

"I don't

how George Com is entitled to any immunity whatsoever." Spreadbury also

argued immunity was not proper because the case against him was tried by an
unsupervised law student.

28.

Aff. Smith, Ex. D at 7:9-10.

During the hearing on the City's Motion for Summary Judgment

Spreadbury argued Bell had no authority to try a prior case against him.
Spreadbury claimed the City's actions were "outrageous", that Bell is "lost in
space," and

"it would

be another year of fun"

trespassing in the Courtroom.

29.

Also, on August

if Bell wanted to charge him with

Aff. Smith, Ex. E at 5:24-25,7:l-2.

6,2}l},the Ravalli District

Court had a pretrial

conference for Spreadbury's appeal from his conviction of criminal trespass.

Smith, Ex.

30.

G: Or. Setting Hrg. (Aug.

Aff.

6, 2010).

On August 9,2010,the Ravalli Republic published an article regarding

the August 6,2010 hearings. The August 9,2010 article correctly noted
Spreadbury was previously charged and convicted ofcriminal trespass, and the

Court held a pretrial conference on August 6,2010, conceming Spreadbury's
appeal from the conviction.

Aff. Smith, Ex. H: Ravalli Republic article (Aug.

2010).
3

1

.

The August 9, 2010 article summarizes the arguments made in the

hearings held on August 6,2010, and details comments made by Spreadbury

9,

during the hearings.

32.

Aff. Smith, Ex. H.

On August

17

,2010, the criminal trespass charges against Spreadbury

were dropped. Aff. Smith, Ex.

I:

Or. Dismissal, Cause No. DC-10-26 (Aug. 17,

2010).

33.

Later, Spreadbury asked that the Ravalli Republic make a correction to

the August 9,2010 article. Dkt. 90 at fl 90.

34.

On August 24,2010,the Ravalli Republic published a correction to the

August 9, 2010 article, noting the City had subsequently dropped the charges

criminal trespass against Spreadbury. Aff. Smith, Ex.

I:

of

Ravalli Republic

correction (Aug. 24, 2010).

35.

Both the Missoulian and the Ravalli Republic published articles

regarding the City dropping the charges. Dkt. 14; 57-1, Ex.

(Aug. 18,2010), Ex.

36.

L:

K:

Missoulian article

Ravalli Republic article (Aug. 19,2010).

Finally, Spreadbury pled guilty to the felony intimidation charges.

Subsequently, both the Missoulian and the Ravalli Republic published articles

regarding Spreadbury pleading guilty to the felony intimidation charges. Dkt. 57-

l, Ex. M: Missoulian article (Oct.
15, 2010), Ex.

37.

15, 2010),

Ex.N: Ravalli Republic article (Oct.

O: Ravalli Republic article (Oct.

17

,2010).

The current matter is brought against the Library, City of Hamilton,

Lee Enterprises, and the law firm of Boone Karlberg, P.C. Regarding Lee

10s8268

Enterprises, Spreadbury alleges: Count 8 - Tortious Interference With
Prospective Economic Advantage; Count

Count l9

-

Defamation, Defamation Per Se; Count 20

Emotional Distress; Count 21
23

-

l8 - NegligenceA{egligence Per

-

-

Se;

Intentional Infliction of

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count

Injunctive Relief; and Count 26 * Punitive Damages. Dkt. 90 at 25-26, 34-40,

Aa

38.

On July 28,2011, the U.S. Magistrate Judge entered Findings and

Recommendations (Dkt. 75) regarding Lee Enterprises' Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(bX6) motion to dismiss Spreadbury's Amended Complaint (Dkt l-1)

for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted, and Findings and
Recommendations regarding Spreadbury's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
against Lee Enterprises.

39.

The U.S. Magistrate recommended Lee Enterprises' Motion to Dismiss

be granted in part, and denied in all other respects. Specifically, the Court

recommended dismissal of Spreadbury's defamation claim with respect to the

articles published by Lee Enterprises, dismissal of Spreadbury's defamation per

se

claim, dismissal of Spreadbury's 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 claim, and dismissal of
Spreadbury's claim of negligence per se. Dkt. 75.

40. On August 10, 2011, the U.S. Magistrate granted Spreadbury's request
to amend his pleadings with respect to his claim against Lee Enterprises stemming

1058268

from the Ravalli Republic's August 9,2010 article, alleging Lee Enterprises
published false information. Dkt. 85.

41.

In particular, Spreadbury alleges the August 9,2010 article contains

false information about his criminal behavior, prior lawsuits filed, and comments
made by him in oral arguments before Judge Larson in the 21st Judicial District

Court. Dkt. 90 at tT 89.

42.

Accordingly, the following issues in Spreadbury's Second Amended

Complaint remain: Count 8, Tortious lnterference With Prospective Economic
Advantage; Count 18, Negligence, as to the comments published by Lee
Enterprises, and for the alleged false statements made in the August 9,2010

Ravalli Republic article; Count 19, Defamation, as to the comments published by
Lee Enterprises, and for the alleged false statements made in the August 9,2010

Ravalli Republic article; Count 20, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, as
to the comments published by Lee Enterprises, and for the alleged false statements
made in the August 9, 2010 Ravalli Republic article; Count

2I,

Negligent Infliction

of Emotional Distress; Count 23, Injunctive Relief, as to the comments published
by Lee Enterprises, and for the alleged false statements made in the August 9,2010

10s8268

Ravalli Republic article; and Count 26, Punitive Damages.

DATED this 28th day of September, 201 l.

/sl

Jeffrey B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on the 28th day ofSeptember,20l l, a copy ofthe
foregoing document was served on the following persons by the following means:

1.3
2

CM/ECF
Hand Delivery

Mail
Ovemight Delivery Service
Fax
E-Mail

1.

Clerk, U.S. District Court

2

Michael E. Spreadbury
P.O. Box 416
Hamilton, MT 59840
Pro Se Plaintiff

3.

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
[e-mail]
npj ones@boonekarlberg. com
[e-mail]
Attomeys for Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, City of Hamilton, and
Boone Karlberg P.C.

/s/ Jeffrey B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

l0
t058268