LAVELY 8c SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN H. LAVELY. JR. MARTIN D. SINGER BRIAN G. WOLF LYNDA B. GOLDMAN PAUL N. SORRELL MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN EVAN N- TELEPHONE (310) 5553501 TODD S. EAGAN- ANDREW B. BRETTLER. AT LAW ALLISON s. HART T. WAYNE HARMAN DAVID B. JONELIS MELISSA Y. LERNER 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067-2906 JAKE A. CAMARA MARTIN F. HIRSHLAND FACSI MILE (310) 556-3615 in NY AND NJ VIA EMAIL: ksm@irb.com Clint Eastwood Kevin S. Marks, Esq. Gang, Tyre, Ramer and Brown, Inc. 132 South Rodeo Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212-2425 VIA EMAIL: ksm@gtrb.com Clint Eastwood The Malpaso Company 4000 Warner Blvd. Building 81, Suite 100 Burbank, CA 91522 VIA EMAIL: Joltn.R0govin@wamerbros.com John Rogovin, Esq. Executive Vice President General Counsel Warner Bros. 4000 Warner Blvd. Burbank, CA 91522 December 9, 2019 - LEGAL DEMAND VIA EMAIL: rlevy@icmtalent.c0m Marie Brenner Rick Levy, Esq. ICM Partners 10250 Constellation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067 VIA EMAIL: pnichols@lgna.com Billy Ray Peter Nichols, Esq. Lichter Grossman Nichols Adler Feldman Clark 9200 Sunset Blvd. West Hollywood, CA 90069 Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises. Inc. v. Warner Bros.. - ?Ricbyd Jewel!? Our File No. 6739-2 Ladies/ Gentlemen: We are writing on behalf of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises, Inc. (collectively unless the context otherwise requires) and are writing regarding the film ?Richard Jewell.? It is highly ironic that a ?lm purporting to tell a tragic story of how the reputation of an FBI suspect was grievously tarnished appears bent on a path to severely tarnish the reputation of the C, a newspaper with a respected 150-year-old publishing legacy. Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros., et a1. - ?Richard Jewell? December 9, 2019 Page 2 The ?Richard Jewell? ?lm falsely portrays the AJC and its personnel as extraordinarily reckless, using unprofessional and highly inappropriate reporting methods, and engaging in constitutional malice by recklessly disregarding information inconsistent with its planned reporting. This, too, is the height of irony, since all those involved in the ?lm?s creation and dissemination and its false portrayal of the are the ones who have acted recklessly and are engaging in constitutional malice. The ?lm falsely portrays the reporters, and Kathy Scruggs in particular, as unethical, unprofessional and reckless. Ms. Scruggs was an experienced reporter whose methodology was professional and appropriate, in contrast to how she is portrayed in the ?lm. She was a seasoned reporter who worked proactively within appropriate journalistic bounds. Despite the true facts, the ?lm depicts her use of inappropriate and unprofessional reporting methods that included getting story tips from an FBI source in exchange for sexual favors. The reporter is reduced to a sex-trading object in the ?lm, having been ?written as an unethical journalist who sleeps with an FBI agent for information. . Such a portrayal makes it appear that the sexually exploited its staff and/or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual grati?cation to sources in exchange for stories. That is entirely false and malicious, and it is extremely defamatory and damaging. This is particularly so.in today?s ?Me Too? environment and ?cancel culture,? in which the public is quick to blindly blackball anyone and anything merely accused of participating in or condoning sexual exploitation in the workplace, even if such an accusation is ?ctional and false. Signi?cantly, there is no claim in Ms. Brenner?s Vanity Fair piece on which the ?lm is based that the C?s reporter unethically traded sex for information. It is clear that the ?lm?s depiction of an Al reporter trading sex for stories is a malicious fabrication contrived to sell movie tickets. For a ?lm that purports to be about the besmirching of someone?s reputation to proceed to smear Ms. Scruggs and the paper she reported for in this manner is highly offensive. It is also highly defamatory. This false portrayal of supposed reporting methods is extraordinarily damaging to the Al and its reputation. As you should know, it has been incontrovertibly adjudicated that the articles Los Angeles Times, ?Monument to a hero ?Richard Jewell,? Clint Eastwood?s drama about the ?96 Atlanta Olympics bombing case, scrutinizes media,? November 22, 2019 9] 122/282527250278393 12-98ed-33 ca867367e/orig.pdf Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros., et al. - ?Richard Jewell December 9, 2019 Page 3 reporting on Richard Jewell being an FBI suspect in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing ?in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published,?2 such that the assertions in the ?lm that state or infer otherwise about the reporting are false, highly defamatory, and with constitutional malice. You should be well aware of the true facts since Marie Brenner?s Vanity Fair article on which the ?lm is allegedly based stated that ?the .B.I. had singled [Richard Jewell] out as the Olympic Park bombing suspect,? and her article repeatedly noted that the FBI had considered him a suspect.3 Moreover, Ms. Brenner was certainly aware of the true facts since my client?s legal counsel had sought retraction of inaccurate defamatory assertions contained in her Vanity Fair article after it was published. Media reports about the ?lm con?rm that its portrayal of this AJ reporter outrageously depicts her as someone who ?only bothers to check the facts of her reporting weeks after the story runs.?4 The AJ is therefore falsely portrayed in the ?lm as recklessly publishing stories without having done fact-checking. Signi?cantly, however, Marie Brenner?s Vanity Fair article on which the ?lm is based speci?cally noted key instances where reporter Ms. Scruggs properly obtained material information supportng the reporting before publication, demonstrating that the ?lm?s ?ctional defamatory portrayal was done with knowledge of its falsity. For example, Ms. Brenner?s article expressly stated that before the AJ broke the Richard ewell story, ?Kathy Scruggs, a police reporter, who had allegedly gotten a tip from a close friend in the F.B.I., got con?rmation from someone in the Atlanta police.?5 Ms. Brenner?s story also noted that prior to publication the AJ had con?rmed. with ?rst-person observation that there was a law enforcement stake out of Mr. ewell?s apartment. Despite this, the ?lm portrays the AJ as publishing recklessly. Doing so is pure hypocrisy given the recklessness permeating the ?lm?s portrayal of the AJ and its reporting. That the ?lm portrays the AJ and its staff in a false and defamatory manner is also 2 Bryant v. Cox Enterprises, Inc. 31 1 Ga. App. 230, 239, 715 458, 467 (20] 3 Vanity Fair, ?American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell? 997/02/brennerl 99702 4 Los Angeles Times. ?Monument to a hero ?Richard Jewell,? Clint Eastwood?s drama about the ?96 Atlanta Olympics bombing case, scrutinizes media." November 22, 2019 usa/ 1 9 I 1 22/2 82527250278393 12-98ed-33 ca867367e/orig.pdf 5 Vanity Fair. ?American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell" 997/02/brennerl 99702 Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises. Inc. v. Warner Bros.. et a1. - ?Richard Jewell? December 9, 2019 Page 4 highly ironic because it was the reporting that played a pivotal role in developing information that led to the exoneration of Mr. Jewell. Investigation by the AJ C?s reporters determined that it would have been logistically impossible for Mr. Jewell to have made the 911 call that the bomber made from a pay phone that was blocks away from Mr. ewell?s location in Centennial Olympic Park. The publication of the AJ C?s front page story containing that analysis led to a shift of direction in the investigation. More than two months later, Mr. Jewell was cleared by the federal government. Not only does the ?lm omit the highly signi?cant fact that the AJ C?s reporting discovered the logistical impossibility of Mr. Jewell calling from the pay phone, the ?lm actually substitutes that true fact with a false and ?ctional narrative in which Mr. Jewell?s lawyer (not the reporters) is depicted unearthing the logistical problems. This was a key ?nding made by the AJ C. The ?lm?s intentional falsi?cation of the facts in this regard, so they ?t its predetermined storyline to portray the as unethical, untrustworthy, and reckless, exempli?es the ?lm?s malicious defamatory intent.6 Despite these facts, the ?lm falsely portrays the AJ as blindly accepting information from law enforcement sources without subjecting it to any sort of journalistic scrutiny. Such a portrayal turns the facts on their head. The example of the C?s reporters conducting their own onsite analysis showing the impossibility of the law enforcement theory that Mr. Jewell placed the 911 call from a distant pay phone demonstrates that the reporting methods were indeed thoughtful and appropriate. The ?lm falsely portrays the AJ as having questionable sourcing for its initial report that the FBI considered Richard Jewell a suspect in the bombing. This assertion is demonstrably false and highly defamatory. The initial breaking story that reported on July 30, 1996 that the suspects ?hero? guard may have planted bomb? and identi?ed Mr. Jewell as ?the focus of the federal investigation?7 was incontrovertibly determined by the court to have been ?substantially true at the time? of publication.8 Far from acting recklessly, the AJ actually held that story for a day to develop additional independent corroboration of key facts prior to publication. Law enforcement sources con?rmed to the AJ their focus on Mr. Jewell, and FBI activity had been visible at the Jewell?s apartment. The accuracy of the story had also been con?rmed with an FBI Spokesperson to whom the entire story was read before publication. In sum, the acted responsibly and in accordance with apprOpriate journalistic standards. As such, the assertion in the ?lm that the AJ recklessly relied on questionable sourcing is itself Gert: v. Robert Welch, Inc, 680 F.2d 527, 539 (7th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 103 S. Ct. 1233 (1983) (held constitutional malice can be shown through calculated use of journalistic device of pre-conceived storylines, themes, or angles). 7 Bryant v. Cox, supra, 31 1 Ga. App. at 232, 715 at 462. 8 Bryant v. Cox. supra. 31] Ga. App. at 239, 715 at 467. Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros.. et al. - ?Richard Jewell? December 9, 2019 Page 5 reckless. The ?lm?s direct and implied defamatory accusations give rise to liability.9 The ?lm?s portrayal of AJ and its reporting staff omits relevant facts such that they are portrayed in a false and defamatory manner, such defamation by omission would likewise support liability.10 Claims for trade libel may also arise from a damaging false portrayal of the Atlanta oumal-Constitution in the It is obvious that nobody associated with the ?lm was actually interested in obtaining the accurate facts from my clients since you completely disregarded the information that was provided when my client?s representatives met with the ?lm makers and the former editor who was Ms. Scruggs? boss provided relevant feedback about how the Al broke the story and who Ms. Scruggs was as a person and as a reporter. It is evident that the meeting was a mere pretext and that any information that deviated from or was inconsistent with the film?s planned thesis was ignored. Such conduct evidences purposeful avoidance of the truth, supporting a ?nding of constitutional malice.12 The initial focus on Mr. Jewell as a suspect had truly unfortunate consequences and 9 Write v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (?defamation by implication stems not from what is literally stated, but what is implied,? recognizing ?possibility that a defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report?); Kapellas v. Kojinan, 1 Cal.3d 20, 33, 81 Cal.Rptr. 360 (1969) (libel defendant is accountable and liable ?for what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly?); Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9lh Cir. 2002), quoting Selleck v. Globe Int'l, 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 212 Cal.Rptr. 838, 843 (1985) (?our inquiry is not to determine whether the publication may have an innocent meaning but rather to determine if it reasonably conveys a defamatory meaning. In making that determination we look to what is explicitly stated as well as what insinuation and implication can reasonably be drawn from the publication?). '0 See, Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Gas. Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 165, 1180 (2002); Milkoviclt v. Lorain Journal Ca, 497 US. 1, 19, 110 2695, 2706 (1990) (incomplete facts may imply false assertion of fact); oney v. WC 0 Television, Midwest Cable and Satellite, 85 F.3d 383, 392 (8th Cir. 1996) (recognizing cause of action for implied defamation where defendant omits important facts); Express Publishing Co. v. Gonzalez, 350 589, 592 (Tex. 1961) (?it is not a defense to show that a statement contained in a publication, if taken alone, is literally true, when other facts are omitted which plainly refute the false impression of the partial statement. A statement is not true or even substantially true if. by implication, an entirely untrue impression is made by omission of part of the facts?); Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wash.2d 812, 827 (2005) (defamation claim where ?the communication left a false impression that would be contradicted by the inclusion of omitted facts?). See, e. Mann Quality Old Time Service Inc, 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 607 (2006) (?trade libel involves false disparagement of the quality of goods or services?). '2 Harte-Hanks, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 US. 657, 692 (1989) (?purposeful avoidance of the truth" supports a ?nding of constitutional malice). Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros., et al. - ?Richard Jewell? December 9, 2019 Page 6 resulted in a negative perception of Mr. Jewell by the public before the FBI exonerated him. It would therefore be the height of hypocrisy for the ?lm to create a defamatory false public perception of the AJ and its reporting staff and methods based on misinformation and defamatory falsehoods. The AJ C?s writers were and are professionals who follow accepted journalistic standards. They have been the recipients of multiple Pulitzer Prizes during the paper?s ISO-plus year history. It would be a travesty if this ?lm?s plot was contrived to pro?t by manipulating the facts to defamatory affect, causing devastating harm to the reputations of the AJ and its hard- working journalists. Clint Eastwood has been quoted saying about the ?lm that, to get it made sold a lot of souls to the devil. He said wanted this picture in the worst way. And he proceeded to make ?this picture in the worst way? a way that amounts to a malicious defamatory smear of the and its journalists. The beginning of the ?lm trailer proclaims that it is ON THE TRUE and the trailer ends by telling consumers: WORLD WILL KNOW HIS NAME AND THE While the ?lm may tell truths about Mr. Jewell, the ?facts? it portrays about the AJ and its journalists are untruthful, defamatory, and damaging. Since the ?lm will be released internationally, my clients do not need to satisfy constitutional malice criteria for a success?il defamation lawsuit in various jurisdictions including, but not limited to, the UK, France, and Australia. My clients will simply need to establish that statements in the ?lm are false and that it is defamatory by harming my client?s reputation, one of the ?nest newspapers in the world. Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately issue a statement publicly acknowledging that some events were imagined for dramatic purposes and artistic license and dramatization were used in the ?lm?s portrayal of events and characters We further demand that you add a prominent disclaimer to the film to that effect. As a result of the untruthful, defamatory statements about the AJ and its reporters in the '3 Los Angeles Times, ?Monument to a hero ?Richard Jewell.? Clint Eastwood?s drama about the ?96 Atlanta Olympics bombing case. scrutinizes media,? November 22, 2019 122/282527250278393 12-98ed?33 ca867367e/orig.pdf ?4 3548/videoplayer/vi 83 76 Re: Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cox Enterprises. Inc. v. Warner Bros.. et (k ?Richard Jewell? December 9, 2019 Page 7 ?lm, all those involved in the ?lm and in the dissemination of its defamatory falsehoods are exposed to signi?cant liability in the United States, as well as in other jurisdictions throughout the world where the ?lm is disseminated. You therefore proceed to disregard this letter?s demands at your peril. This does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of my clients? rights or claims. Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of our clients? rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. Sincere] MARTIN D. SINGER cc: Juliette Pryor, Esq. Kristen Weathersby, Esq. Darrell D. Miller, Esq. Lynda B. Goldman, Esq. 120619