Jenni Rivera’s ex-manager Pete Salgado wrote a book that Univision used to base a TV series Su era Dolores (Her Real Name Was Dolores) that resulted in a lawsuit from Rivera’s Estate alleging that Univision producers intentionally interfered with a nondisclosure agreement between Salgado and the late pop star’s estate.
The case, while not as mega scale like Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, this smaller legal challenge reviews both the scope and limitations of the First Amendment in obtaining and then disclosing confidential information.
Back in February 2017, it was reported that Jenni Rivera’s estate sued Univision over the TV series and was seeking $10 million in damages. The tell-all book in question is Salgado’s. Su verdadero nombre es Dolores first aired on January 15, 2017, on the Spanish-language network, according to the Rivera estate, “leaves no doubt” that it “relies heavily on information that Salgado has disclosed in violation” of a non-disclosure agreement signed in 2013. Su es Dolores is co-produced by BTF Media, a company co-owned by Salgado.
Univision was accused of interference and inducing breach of contract by providing Salgado with a financial incentive to develop the television series based on confidential information, a platform to broadcast the series that helps promote future sales of his book about Jenni Rivera’s life and “giving Salgado the prestige of being an executive producer of a TV series broadcast on Univision’s networks.”
The lawsuit created a big problem for the Spanish-language network which was the subject of a notable ruling on May 29, 2019, from a California appeals court:
Salgado was restricted from sharing the Mexican pop star’s secrets thanks to a nondisclosure agreement. That prompted a lawsuit from the Jenni Rivera Estate, and while her heirs couldn’t stop the series from airing, both Univision and BTF Media were unsuccessful in their attempts to immediately dismiss claims of interfering with a hush deal.
According to Wednesday’s opinion, part of the trial court’s decision to allow the case to move forward was in error.
California Appellate Justice John Segal sets up the First Amendment showdown.
He writes that “speech on matters of public concern occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” Yet, he also notes “precedent establishing that the right to speak and publish doesn’t carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information. While it may be true that the newsgathering of lawfully acquired information is protected, there are some activities — like using telephoto lenses to intrude upon private establishments — that are outside the bounds.”
Univision insisted that the First Amendment provided a complete defense to claims over the Rivera series because such claims arose out of a publication of a “truthful account of a newsworthy event about a public figure.
The Jenni Rivera Estate insists that Univision paid money to “intentionally encourage a breach of and that such activity went beyond “traditional means of news-gathering.”
TV creators, distributors, and networks must be asking: “Is paying for a television series that will divulge secrets like a reporter who asks questions of those in a position of confidence? Or is it akin to a reporter who trespasses into a home to score a scoop?”
Segal further writes, “California courts have not determined where intentionally interfering with a nondisclosure agreement falls on this continuum.”
The justice further stated that “jurisdictions and legal scholars have been wary of extending liability to the media on tortious interference claims, especially on matters of public significance.
“We need not decide the broad question whether the torts of inducing a breach of contract and interfering with a contract are ‘independent torts’ such that the First Amendment can never provide a defense to such claims when they arise from conduct that leads to the publication or broadcast of truthful and newsworthy information,” continues the appeals court. “Here, it is uncontroverted Univision had no knowledge of the nondisclosure agreement at the time it entered into the license agreement with BTF. The evidence of Univision’s actions, after it learned of the nondisclosure agreement, that arguably contributed to Salgado’s continued breaches of the agreement consisted of continuing to pay license fees to BTF and promoting Salgado’s involvement with the Series. Even if those actions were sufficient to serve as the basis of liability for tortious interference, they are not sufficiently ‘wrongful’ or ‘unlawful’ to overcome the First Amendment newsgathering and broadcast privileges.”
It’s a very favorable decision for Univision, which is able to reverse an order denying its SLAPP motion– strategic lawsuit against public participation. It provides a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech… “an anti-SLAPP motion stays all discovery.
As a result, Univision will escape the case. However, the producers of the series aren’t so lucky.
The BTF parties also brought a motion premised on California’s SLAPP statute, meant to deter frivolous actions targeting First Amendment activity. But the producers didn’t argue as Univision did that their activity constituted newsgathering and as such, the First Amendment provided a bar to the suit at hand. Instead, perhaps due to a closer relationship with Salgado, the producers focused attention on how the plaintiff’s claims were unlikely to succeed.
In the decision, the appeals court rules that the Jenni Rivera Estate made a prima facie showing that’s sufficient to establish causes of action including interference with contract.
“The Producers cite numerous cases from California and other states in support of their argument that they cannot be liable for inducing a breach of or interfering with the nondisclosure agreement because they did not have knowledge of the agreement at the time production of the Series began,” states the decision. “None of the cases they cite, however, stands for the proposition that JRE cannot state a cause of action based on Salgado’s continuing obligations under the agreement and his breaches of discrete obligations at different times.”
The full decision then goes on to shrug off the producers’ contention that they had reason to doubt the authenticity of the NDA based on Salgado’s declaration that he never signed it. Countering this is a notation stating that “On October 20, 2016, Salgado conceded the signature on the nondisclosure agreement was his. In support of his special motion to strike, Salgado argued instead that the fourth page of the agreement, which included his signature, was not attached to the rest of the document at the time he signed it.”
According to Segal, “At most, the Producers’ argument created an issue for the trier of fact regarding the Producers’ knowledge of the nondisclosure agreement; it did not defeat JRE’s showing of minimal merit.”
Unfortunately, Jenni Rivera’s legal saga continues. Stay tuned.