Is Jerry West’s Potential Lawsuit Against HBO Over His Portrayal in the Lakers Docudrama “Winning Time” a Jump Ball?

Final month, HBO released its new drama collection Successful Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty – based mostly on the book Showtime: Magic, Kareem, Riley and the Los Angeles Lakers Dynasty of the 1980s by Jeff Pearlman. To say that Jerry West, the former head mentor and GM of the Los Angeles Lakers dislikes the way he is portrayed in the HBO sequence Successful Time is an understatement. West calls his portrayal “false and defamatory” and he has publicly identified as for a retraction and an apology.  In a letter to HBO, West’s law firm statements that Winning Time falsely and cruelly portrays West as an out-of-handle, intoxicated, rage-aholic. West’s attorney claims that the producers have fully commited the tort of bogus light-weight invasion of privateness by building a fake effect about Mr. West that is extremely offensive and injurious to his standing and have also defamed Mr. West by attributing functions of rage to him that he never ever fully commited.

In De Havilland v. Forex Networks, LLC, Olivia De Havilland advanced a false gentle assert in excess of her portrayal in the docudrama “Feud: Bette and Joan”. A bogus mild claim is a variety of invasion of privacy, centered on publicity that sites a man or woman in the public eye in a false gentle that would be extremely offensive to a affordable man or woman, and exactly where the defendant understood or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized subject and the wrong light-weight in which the aggrieved individual would be placed.  A wrong mild declare is equivalent to a libel claim, and its requirements are the same as a libel claim, like evidence of malice. So, in order for West to prevail on each his wrong light-weight claim and his defamation claim, he would have to show that his portrayal in Winning Time have been (1) assertions of actuality, (2) basically false or generate a fake impression about him, (3) are extremely offensive to a fair particular person or defamatory, and (4) created with real malice. Genuine malice would be recognized by demonstrating that HBO deliberately portrayed West in the hope of insinuating a defamatory import to the viewer, or that HBO understood or acted in reckless disregard as to whether his portrayal would be interpreted by the common viewer as a defamatory assertion of reality.

A person of the portrayals West promises to be defamatory was HBO’s depictions of his reaction to the drafting of Magic Johnson. The sequence portrays West in the next scenes about Magic Johnson – a person is West golfing with Jerry Buss, Monthly bill Shannan and Frank Mariani while discussing Magic Johnson and West is shown kicking his golf ball, obtaining a profanity laden outburst and storming off another displays West yelling and breaking a golf club more than his knee and a 3rd scene, getting spot right after Magic Johnson was drafted, West is portrayed throwing his MVP trophy as a result of his business window in anger.

Right before the courtroom even will get to the concern of whether West’s portrayal is defamatory, the court docket would 1st have to determine no matter if his portrayal was substantially true and if not, whether or not scenes are statements of actuality or the dramatized viewpoint of the producer.

Given that truth of the matter is a protection to a defamation claim, HBO would probably argue that West’s portrayal was substantially accurate. In choosing whether or not a assertion is substantially genuine, courts commonly evaluate the language or portrayal with the actual truth to establish no matter whether the reality would have a various result on the head of the typical reader/viewer. Apparently, West was not absolutely persuaded that Magic could prosper as a position guard and West most well-liked Sidney Moncrief. Seemingly, West went as significantly as to try to persuade Jack Kent Cooke, the outgoing proprietor of the Lakers, not to draft Johnson.  Also, evidently in West’s autobiography, “My Charmed, Tormented Life”, he mentioned purposefully breaking golf golf equipment and Pat Riley witnessing him throwing his golf equipment around the fence of the Bel Air Nation Club. Can the producers choose these impartial points, dramatize and mix them, and continue to have this portrayal be substantially accurate?

If a statement/portrayal is not truthful, then the most important consideration is regardless of whether such an normal, fair viewer, viewing the scenes in their original context, would conclude that they are statements of truth and not the dramatized impression of the producer.  According to the viewpoint of the De Havilland court docket, that may be a problem to create. There the court docket explained that “[v]iewers are commonly familiar with dramatized, point-based mostly films and miniseries in which scenes, discussions, and even figures are fictionalized and imagined” and the truth that a program “is a so-known as docudrama or historical fiction . . . may possibly show that the quotations should not be interpreted as the actual statements of the speaker to whom they are attributed”. Citing the Ninth Circuit circumstance of Partington v. Bugliosi, the court docket concluded that most viewers of docudramas “are mindful by now that components of such plans are more fiction than reality.”

It seems that the courts in New York may possibly not go as considerably as the California Court of Appeals did in De Havilland.  In Fairstein v. Netflix, the United States District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York declined to conclude that viewers of When They See Us would believe the application is “more fiction than fact” but relatively that the dialogue in the dramatization “is not a verbatim recounting of the real-daily life participants and is supposed to capture the essence of their text and deeds.”

In accordance to the Fairstein court docket, the critical to determining the difference in between non-actionable statements of feeling and actionable statements of specifics (or an view that indicates that it is centered on points which justify the belief) is the implication that the statement is dependent on undisclosed points regarded to the defendants. The difference concerning actuality and viewpoint is an difficulty of regulation for the courts, and the determination will be centered on the court’s evaluation of how the assertion would be understood by the average individual uncovered to the assertion in its whole context.

Is West’s portrayal the unactionable, dramatized view of the producers, or is his portrayal based on, or does it seem to the normal, sensible viewer to be based on undisclosed specifics acknowledged to the producers? Though that will be for the court docket to determine, a variable to take into account is a scene in Profitable Time exactly where Jerry Buss, speaking right to the viewers, says “Jerry West, Head Mentor of the Lakers, thought of a legitimate gentleman of the activity to everybody who does not know him.” West’s lawyers argue that the scene implies that Winning Time depicts the “real” West. Even so, there is a disclaimer at the commencing of Profitable Time. Generally, disclaimers give the producer some space to assert that a perform or sections of a perform are dramatized opinions. Nevertheless, as the United States District Courtroom for the Central District of California pointed out in Gaprindashvili v. Netflix (the Queens Gambit defamation go well with), the existence of a disclaimer is a “factor in the examination, albeit not a dispositive just one.”

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel, here.

Hear to the podcast variation of this episode on your favorite system or on the web, right here.