Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

I dissent.I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Justice Lillie in the opinion prepared by her for the District Court of Appeal in Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (Cal.App.) 40 Cal.Rptr. 146 .

Stationers Corporation and two of its officers, Lillian Boyd and Omar Boyd, Jr., filed a complaint for “Defamation of Business, Libel and Negligence” against Dun *415 & Bradstreet, a mercantile agency corporation, and one of its employees. Defendants made a motion for summary judgment under section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure 1 and filed three declarations in support of the motion. Plaintiffs filed two in opposition. 2 The trial court granted the motion on the ground that no issue of material fact existed, the uncontroverted facts contained in the declarations having established a complete defense under the mercantile agency privilege set forth in section 47, subdivision 3, of the Civil Code. 3 Plaintiffs’ principal contention on this appeal from the ensuing judgment is that the motion should have been denied because the declarations showed that there existed triable issues of fact between the parties.

The complaint sets forth six causes of action, all based on two documents issued by defendants. The first three causes of action assert that defendants libeled plaintiffs with malice, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth allege that the libels resulted from defendants’…