The document summarizes the libel case of Clint Eastwood v. National Enquirer, Inc. It outlines the key elements Eastwood had to prove: 1) publication of the false article, 2) clear identification of Eastwood in the article, 3) the statements were defamatory, 4) the statements were factually false, and 5) the Enquirer acted with actual malice. The Enquirer published an article falsely claiming to have an exclusive interview with Eastwood about becoming a father again at age 63. Eastwood sued for libel and was ultimately awarded $150,000 in damages and $656,000 in legal fees, as the Enquirer failed to properly verify the accuracy of the article.

1. CLINT EASTWOOD V.
NATIONAL ENQUIRER, INC.
By: Sabrina Rodriguez

2. CLINT EASTWOOD= PLAINTIFF
If libel has been committed he has to
prove…
1.Publication
2.Identification
3.Defamation
4.Falsity
5.Fault
+ ACTUAL MALICE because he is a public figure (Eastwood is an
actor/director/producer/musician/politician/etc.)

3. PUBLICATION?
 On December 21, 1993 an article was written
about Eastwood becoming a father again at the
age of 63, by assistant editor Don Gentile for
the...
 National Enquirer which is an American
supermarket tabloid magazine
National Enquirer, Inc. = Defendant

4. IDENTIFICATION?
The article mentions…
 his name
 his relationship with actress Frances Fisher
 a picture of their baby (Francesca
Eastwood)

5. DEFAMATION?
 Injured Clint Eastwood’s reputation by suggesting to an ordinary
reader or even to someone who just looks at the headlines of the
magazine that he willingly talked to someone from the Enquirer
 His fans could think he is a hypocrite for giving the Enquirer an
“exclusive interview” about his private life (plus access to an
“exclusive” baby picture)…
 They could also think he is “washed up as a movie star” if he was
trying to get publicity by a sensationalist magazine

6. FALSITY?
 Eastwood claims the whole article is false as he says never gave an
interview to the Enquirer
 Goes through the chain of command to prove the article was false...

7. FAULT?
The editors of the National Enquirer…
Steve Plamann (article editor) called up Cameron Docherty (original source)
 Docherty said he “erased the tapes” of the interview and didn’t reveal the time or place the
interview occurred
 Plamann also called a former agent of Eastwood’s but happened not be in his office at the
time so secretary answered and all she said was “we know Docherty”
 and David Kendall (who does pre-publication reviews and approved it to be
published)
7

8. ACTUAL MALICE?
 Magazine says “exclusive interview” with Eastwood 3 times (cover, inside
the mag. and in the article itself)
 Including scene-setting phrases and quotes like “[Eastwood] said with a
chuckle” suggested that he and the writer actually conversed
 Conveying the impression that Eastwood actually gave an interview with
them is actual malice
8

9. CONCLUSION...
 7 day trial and 4 days of deliberation
 Eastwood was awarded $150,000
 Under Lanham Act and California law, Judge Davies awarded Eastwood $656,000
in attorney’s fee
9
KEY POINTS
 Do your research! Two phone calls is not enough to prove the information
you received is legitimate
 Make sure words like “exclusive” have the same meaning to you as the
court (Enquirer thought “exclusive” only meant “no one else is publishing
this article in our market)

10. REFERENCES
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1004583.html
http://www.ohmymag.com/clint-eastwood/wallpaper
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm375295744/nm0004920
http://www.ebay.com/itm/National-Enquirer-December-21-1993-Roseanne-Barr-Clint-Eas
http://projectshanks.com/pretty-lady-of-the-day-francesca-
eastwood/francesca-eastwood-3/
10