Media and Entertainment Litigation

First Amendment/AntiSlapp

• ProPublica v. Frazier, 2024 WL 1774224 (2024) – Houston Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a TCPA motion in a case brought by a prominent Houston doctor against ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle for a joint investigative article written about his career as a heart surgeon. The case went to the appellate court twice. First, reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanding with instructions to consider evidence of affirmative defenses. 2020 WL 370563 (2020), and reversing a second denial finding that the investigative report at issue was substantially true, protected by the fair report privilege, and awarding attorney’s fees to the media defendants and journalists.
• Harris v. Warner in and for County of Maricopa, 225 Ariz. 29, 527 P.3d 314 (2023) – Arizona Supreme Court dismissed a defamation case brought by a former Congressional candidate against iHeartMedia because the statements at issue, which were made on a political talk show, were protected under the First Amendment.
• Parker v. Spotify USA, Inc., 569 F. Supp.3d 519 (W.D. Tex. 2021) – a federal district court dismissed, under Rule 12(b)(6), a defamation and fraudulent inducement case brought by an eyewitness who testified at a murder of a judge brought against the distributor, producer, and executive producer of a true crime podcast.
• Darby v. New York Times Co., No. 07-12-00193-CV, 2014 WL 818614 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. denied) – affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of The New York Times and its reporter, James McKinley, in a defamation lawsuit brought by plaintiff, a former activist over an article mentioning his involvement as an FBI informant in a plot to firebomb police cars outside the 2008 Republican National Convention (“RNC”).
• KHOU v. Status Lounge, 693 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. – Hou.[14th Dist.] 2021) – Houston Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a TCPA motion in a case brought by a bar operator brought defamation and business disparagement claim against television station and newspaper after they published articles based on a police report about a shooting at the bar. The case went to the appellate court twice. First, reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as untimely, because the trial court failed to factor in the 60 day abatement period invoked through the Defamation Mitigation Act (541 S.W.3d 881 (2017)), and reversing a second denial finding the statements at issue were substantially true.
• Darrigan v. The American Prospect, Inc., et al., No. 02-24-00061-CV, 2025 WL 2423579  (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2025, pet. denied) – Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed grant of a TCPA Motion to Dismiss, including its award of sanctions and attorney’s fees, in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against the publisher of an article largely regarding an emergency room staffing company, briefly mentioning the plaintiff, which he alleged was defamatory.
• Jones v. Kirkstall Road Enterprises, Inc., Cause No. 05-18-00592-CV, 2020 WL 2059910 (Tex. App. – Dallas April 29, 2020, no pet.) – affirming the grant of summary judgment in a lawsuit claiming negligence and brought by the plaintiff against a production company for its blurring of his image in an episode of The First 48.
• KTRK Television, Inc. v. Theaola Robinson, 409 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) – reversing denial of a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act in a lawsuit brought by plaintiff against local broadcaster, KTRK, for its investigative reporting on the closing of a local charter school due to lack of adequate funds and allegations of financial mismanagement and failure to properly account for state funds. On remand, the trial court awarded all attorney’s fees incurred at the trial and appellate court level.
• Moore v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., et al., No. 05-22-01286-CV, 2021 WL 5480679 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2024) – affirming the dismissal of a defamation action brought against the Dallas Morning News for its reporting on the plaintiff’s arrest and related criminal proceedings for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
• Broder, et al. v. Nexstar Media Inc. & Jody Barr, Cause No. 03-19-00484-CV, 2019 WL 5866590 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, no pet.) – affirming dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act of claims brought by a doctor and his medical practice over an investigative report by Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. and its reporter, Jody Barr. Although the Plaintiff did not file a petition for review, he tried to overturn the ruling through a separately filed Bill of Review but was unsuccessful. The Bill of Review was dismissed in the trial court through a Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss, which was affirmed on appeal.
• Lowry v. Fox Television Stations, LLC, 2022 WL 2720509 (Tex. App. – Hou.[1st Dist.] 2022). – Houston Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal under the TCPA of all claims against Houston area Fox television Station, finding minor errors did not render the reporting substantially untrue because the gist or sting of the story was correctly conveyed.
• Burns v. CBS Stations Group of Texas, LLC, Cause No. 05-20-00700-CV, 2020 WL 7065827 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) – reversing the denial of a dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act of claims brought against CBS Stations Group of Texas, LLC for defamation and negligence after relying on a mug shot provided by law enforcement to identify an individual with the same name involved in a bank robbery.
• Entravision Comm’ns Corp. v. Salinas, 487 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2016, pet. denied) – reversing the denial of dismissal by operation of law under the Texas Citizens Participation Act a defamation claim brought against Entravision for a Facebook post discussing rumors of a father’s detention at the border with a large sum of money. The son, a public official, sued, arguing the post defamed him by mentioning the familial relationship. The trial court failed to rule on the TCPA motion, resulting its dismissal by operation of law, and the 13th Court of Appeals reversed the denial finding the statements were not defamatory as to the son.
• Klayman v. CNN, Cause No. 22-12480, 2023 WL 2027843 (11th Cir. 2023) – a Florida federal court dismissed a defamation case brought against CNN and its employees for reporting on a conspiracy theory relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision.
• Aubrey v. D Magazine Partners, L.P., No. 3:19-CV-0056-B (N.D. Tex. Mar 26, 2020) – successfully defended defamation claim against magazine client regarding article discussing arson murder of prominent Dallas attorney in his garage. When case was initially filed in Florida federal court, we obtained dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds, and when case was refiled in Texas federal court, we obtained dismissal with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds.
• Nelson v. D Magazine Partners, LP, et al., No. 05-09-01380-CV, 377 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2012, pet. denied) – obtained summary judgment on behalf of magazine publisher, author, and current and former police officers on First Amendment and statutory grounds in lawsuit asserting claims for libel, libel per se, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Mitchell v. Big Fish Entertainment, Cause No. 1:21-CV-388-RP, ___ F. Supp. ___, 2023 WL 11832097 (W.D. Tex. 2023) – a federal district court dismissed, under Rule 12(b)(6), claims of conspiracy and negligence brought against production company that participated in a ride-along with law enforcement and broadcast the arrest of Plaintiff on “Live PD.”

Constitutional Challenges

• Book People, Inc. et al. v. Wong, et al., – a federal district court issued a permanent injunction of portions of HB 900 (READER Act) requiring booksellers to rate every book ever sold to Texas public schools based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of “sexually explicit” and “sexually relevant.” __ F. Supp.3d __, 2025 WL 3035109. The 5th Circuit previously upheld a preliminary injunction and this ruling withstood a sua sponte request for en banc reconsideration. 91 F.4th 318 (5th Cir. 2024). The district court later issued a permanent injunction striking down the rating system and awarded approximately $1.2 million in attorney’s fees under Section 1983 for constitutional challenge. __ F. 3d __, 2025 WL 3769586.
• CCIA v. Paxton, Case No. 1:25-cv-01660, 2025 WL 3754045 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2025) – a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Texas SB 2420, which imposes age verification, parental consent, and mandatory age-rating requirements on app stores and developers. The court found the law likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment, holding that it unlawfully restricts speech and imposes vague, burdensome requirements on app stores and developers.

Access to Information/Public Records/Sealing Orders

• Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District and Uvalde County v. Texas Tribune et al., 720 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2025, no pet.) – San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed order requiring Uvalde ISD and Uvalde County to produce all open records in conjunction with Uvalde school shooting.
• 8Fig v. Stepup Funny, 135 F.4th 285 (5th Cir. 2025) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed order granting Newsweek’s intervention and unsealing of records in a fraud case involving 18 defendants.
• City of Dallas v. Paxton, Cause No. 15-24-00081-CV, 2025 WL 2701155 (Tex. App.—Austin [15th Dist.] Aug. 21, 2025) – 15th Court of Appeals affirmed trial court’s order requiring City of Dallas to produce information related to the City’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to the Dallas Morning News, rejecting the City’s argument that the materials fell within the litigation exception to the TPIA. Settlement followed with the City paying $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and releasing the records.

Copyright/Trademark

• Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harris, 749 F. Supp. 3d 776 (W.D. Tex. 2024) – a federal district court granted copyright  infringement and breach-of-contract case in favor of The Wall Street Journal and Barron’s against financial professional who reproduced and distributed more than 6000 WSJ and Barron’s articles without authorization over a period of nearly ten years in a daily newsletter distributed to more than 800 recipients.
• Alarid Felix v. Bleecker Street Media LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00775, (E.D. Tex.) – successfully secured the voluntary dismissal of a copyright lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged his copyright on his Spanish language novel was infringed by our clients, the producers and distributors of the English language movie Jules. We filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants and worked to encourage the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit by both presenting him with evidence and argument of our clients’ non-liability and by challenging him to demonstrate his burden to avoid dismissal. As a result, within one week of receiving our discovery requests, the plaintiff dropped the suit, avoiding costly litigation (including discovery) and securing a swift, favorable result for our clients.
• Baisden v. I’m Ready Productions, Inc., et al., No. 4:08‑cv‑00451 (S.D. Tex. 2008) – successfully defended nine-day copyright infringement trial brought in federal court by nationally syndicated radio host and book author seeking more than $13 million in damages by obtaining complete defense victory, declaratory relief in favor of clients, and substantial award of defense costs.
• Baisden v. I’m Ready Productions, Inc., 693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1229 (2013) – argued copyright infringement appeal to the Fifth Circuit and obtained full affirmance of trial court’s judgment in favor of entertainment industry clients. Briefed response to petition for writ of certiorari to United States Supreme Court and obtained denial of petition.

Jurisdictional Challenges

• Wallace v. Lively, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2025 WL 3769332 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2025) – a federal district court granted Blake Lively’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a $14 million defamation suit arising from statements about sexual harassment and retaliation on the set of It Ends with Us.
• Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, 582 F.Supp.3d 387 (E.D. Tex. 2022) – a federal court transferred a defamation case improperly brought in Texas by a U.S. Representative from California against NBCUniversal, for statements made in New York about the Congressman’s conduct in the District of Columbia.
• Kuykendall v. Amazon Studios, 2022 WL 19337992 (S.D. Tex. 2022) – a federal court transferred, under Rule 12(b)(2), a defamation intentional infliction of emotional distress, and right of publicity case brought by an individual featured in the show The Last Narc. Although the Plaintiff lived in Texas, because the primary work done on the series took place in California, the case was transferred there. Shortly thereafter, an Anti-SLAPP motion was filed, and the Plaintiff dropped his lawsuit.