Hammer Deroburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Guam Publications, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, Both Dba Pacific Daily News

859 F.2d 714 15 Media L. Rep. 2091 Hammer DeROBURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GANNETT CO., INC., a Delaware corporation, and Guam Publications, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, both dba Pacific Daily News, Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-2888. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 14, 1987. Decided Oct. 11, 1988. Morton G. Rosen, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. John B. McCrory, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Before CHAMBERS, SNEED and LEAVY, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 This is a diversity libel action brought by Hammer DeRoburt, President of the Independent Republic of Nauru. Defendants are Gannett and its wholly owned subsidiary Guam Publications, Inc., publisher of Pacific Daily News. 2 The case was previously before us in DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., 733 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1159 , 105 S.Ct. 909 , 83 L.Ed.2d 923 (1985) (error for trial judge to deny motion for reconsideration where plaintiff's fourth amended complaint only minimally intruded into events…

This is a diversity libel action brought by Hammer DeRoburt, President of the Independent Republic of Nauru. Defendants are Gannett and its wholly owned subsidiary Guam Publications, Inc., publisher of Pacific Daily News.

The ease was previously before us in DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., 733 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1159 , 105 S.Ct. 909 , 83 L.Ed.2d 923 (1985) (error for trial judge to deny motion for reconsideration where plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint only minimally intruded into events involving the act of state doctrine). On remand the district court directed a verdict for the defendant Gannett and a jury found for defendant Guam Publications.

Plaintiff first contends that failure to give a jury instruction constitutes error. Defendants claimed a lack of constitutional malice in that there were credible sources of information for the published material. In the course of discovery, and contrary to the court’s order, the defendants failed to disclose the sources of the publication. The news reporter, Francisco Uludong, who is not a defendant, claimed a constitutional privilege against disclosure. In 1982 the district court entered an order which…

concurring:

Here we have a sequel to our DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., 733 F.2d 701 (1984).

I wish to make some comment on the accused newspaper stories that made this case. The reporter was the first small Pacific Islands native to be hired by a paper or papers with a large circulation. He had been apparently indoctrinated on the glories of our First Amendment, and the reporter’s duty to even go to jail to protect his sources.

To me, it is the headlines, surely not written by the reporter Uludong, that made the litigation we have here.

It bears down on the Marshall Islands on the legality of the “loan” according to the Marshall Islands’ laws. It seems to me the laws of Nauru were much more important. For example I suppose that each dollar sent by our government to the Contras offends the laws of Nicaragua under the Sandinistas.

My point is that while we have upheld a right in DeRoburt in our first opinion, exempting DeRoburt from the law of the “Act of State” doctrine, we have reached the outer limit in exempting rulers from the “Act of State”, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, Gannett Co., Inc., et al., v. DeRoburt, 469 U.S. 1159 , 105 S.Ct. 909 , which makes…