This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff alleged defamation based on two postings made by the Defendant on her website, one in 2003 and another in 2006. The 2003 post accused the Plaintiff of soliciting the Defendant to commit a federal crime by hacking a news website. The 2006 post recapped the 2003 incident and added further commentary, including an email exchange with a third party and additional remarks about the Plaintiff's public persona (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff's defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the 2006 posting constituted a republication of the defamatory material, restarting the statute of limitations. She also contended that the Defendant was not entitled to immunity under the CDA because the Defendant actively contributed to the defamatory content (paras 16, 24-26).
- Defendant: Asserted that the defamation claim was time-barred under the single publication rule and that the CDA provided immunity as the Defendant was merely a user or provider of an interactive computer service and did not create the defamatory content (paras 6, 19-22).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff's defamation claim regarding the 2006 posting was barred by the statute of limitations under the single publication rule.
- Whether the Defendant was entitled to immunity under the Communications Decency Act for the alleged defamatory postings.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 31).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry and Castillo JJ. concurring):
Statute of Limitations: The Court adopted the single publication rule for internet publications, which generally bars claims for multiple disseminations of the same content after the statute of limitations has expired. However, the Court found that the 2006 posting contained substantive changes and additions, creating a genuine issue of fact as to whether it constituted a republication. This issue should be decided by a jury (paras 10-18).
Communications Decency Act: The Court held that while the Defendant's website qualified as an interactive computer service under the CDA, there was a factual dispute as to whether the Defendant acted as an "information content provider" by contributing to the creation or development of the defamatory content. The Defendant's actions, including soliciting and incorporating third-party material into her own commentary, could potentially expose her to liability. This issue also required further factual determination (paras 19-27).
Other Matters: The Court declined to address the Plaintiff's appeal of the denial of her motion for summary judgment and other procedural issues, as these could be revisited on remand. The Plaintiff's pro se submissions regarding sanctions and amendments to her complaint were dismissed for lack of proper argumentation (paras 28-30).