There’s an old saying from back in the days of my long-lost youth that sometimes you have to hit a mule in the head with a two-by-four to get his attention,
And before I start getting bombarded by animal rights activists, I’m not advocating hitting mules or any other animal with anything.
And I’m not calling the good folks at WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge mules. But a $2.5 million preliminary default judgment levied against the station and its investigative reporter after the station failed to answer a defamation LAWSUIT against it and reporter Chris Nakamoto was the club that got the station’s attorneys’ attention.
The two-page JUDGMENT, signed in chambers by 21st Judicial District Court Judge Doug Hughes of Denham Springs, isn’t likely to stand for a number or reasons put forth by station attorney Stephen Babcock of Baton Rouge.
But the main point to be taken from this litigation is that it may well be the first volley fired across the bow of Baton Rouge media as part of a growing trend toward the filing of the so-called SLAPP lawsuits.
SLAPP is the acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and that’s precisely what it means: lawsuits filed not to win a judgment, but to discourage legitimate questions about official misconduct lest citizens asking the questions—or in this instance, the reporter and his news medium—be forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves.
In this case, WBRZ, as opposed to an ordinary citizen like Welsh City Alderman JACOB COLBY PERRY, has legal liability insurance and can well afford to defend itself. Still, such lawsuits call a station’s and reporter’s integrity and credibility into question and can conceivably injure the reporter’s career opportunities.
An editor in my professional past once told me, “If you haven’t been sued, you aren’t doing your job.” Well, that’s a form of validation I can live without. It’s not unlike being pecked to death by a duck.
I’ll leave it to WBRZ, Nakamoto and their legal team to explain why they never bothered to answer the lawsuit filed by Livingston attorney Wyman Bankston on behalf of State Police Lt. Robert Burns of Livingston Parish—if they care to put forth an explanation. But I will say from my layman’s viewpoint, it’s unwise to ignore litigation. People are trying to get into your pocket and it’s prudent that you defend yourself.
In this case, Nakamoto had done a perfectly legitimate STORY, which it based in its entirety on public records obtained from LSP, on the 64-hour suspension imposed on Burns by Louisiana State Police (LSP) following an Internal Affairs investigation into his conducting 52 illegal computer searches on his ex-wife, her fiance and a former boyfriend over a period of almost three years—from November 2013 to October 2016.
Burns, in his defense—which LSP investigators, by the way, didn’t buy—said that in 46 of those occasions, he was conducting a search of his own license plate and that the “spin-off” searches of his wife were a result of “unintended inquiries generated by an automated system.”
That explanation, however, does not explain the two searches on his former wife’s current fiance and the four searches on her ex-boyfriend. Those searches, besides vehicle and driver’s license records, also included computerized criminal histories on the two men. You can’t explain that away by saying you were doing a search on your own license number. And the obvious question: why was it necessary to conduct 46 searches of his own license number anyway?
Nor does it explain why he subsequently disseminated some of the information he had found (according to WBRZ’s belated response) or why he texted his ex-wife to request that she not report his actions because he “could get fired for doing so.”
Why could he have been fired? Because the searches were “for non-law enforcement purposes, in violation of (LSP) department policy and federal law,” according to a letter from LSP notifying him of an impending suspension.
When neither WBRZ, Nakamoto, nor their legal counsel filed an answer to the lawsuit and when they failed to appear in court on Sept. 28, and without the plaintiff’s submitting any evidence of his claims that Nakamoto had not read the entire LSP report as Burns claimed in his petition, Judge Hughes—in chambers—ruled that the station and Nakamoto were at fault and awarded $1.5 million to Burns and $1 million to his wife, Hilary Burns.
That got WBRZ’s attorney’s rear in gear. On Oct. 12, Babcock filed a 19-page (10 pages longer than Burn’s original petition) MEMORANDUM in support of a motion for a new trial.
In that motion, the station’s attorney argued that a default judgment can be handed down only if the plaintiff presents “competent evidence that convinces the court that it is probable that he would prevail on a trial on the merits” and that he “must prove each element of his claim as fully as if each of the allegations of the petition had been specifically denied by the defendant.”
“Plaintiff is required to adhere to the rules of evidence despite there being no opponent to urge objections,” Babcock wrote in his motion, and that the “trial judge should be vigilant to assure that the judgment rests on admissible evidence.”
Babcock cited a decision by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court said:
- Judges, acting with the benefit of hindsight, must resist the temptation to edit journalists aggressively. Reporters must have some freedom to respond to journalistic exigencies without fear that even a slight, and understandable, mistake will subject them to liability. Exuberant judicial blue-penciling after-the-fact would blunt the quills of even the most honorable journalists.
On Monday, Judge Hughes signed a one-page ORDER setting 9 a.m. Monday, Dec. 11, as the time and date that Burns must show cause why a new trial should not be granted.
Burns would probably be wise not to buy that beachfront property in Gulf Shores just yet.
And WBRZ, you just got scooped on your own story.
Louisiana Voice 
Wow!! What a post, Tom. C. B. Would pull out his patented one-liner: “You can’t make this stuff up.”
He didn’t say it, so I will. Different Robert Burns, folks. Believe me, different Robert Burns. This one’s not a state trooper and he doesn’t have a wife named Hilary….or any other wife, and he doesn’t live in Livingston Parish.
Here we go again ! Apparently when a Louisiana State Trooper commits a Federal Crime there is a double standard compared to the public he is sworn to protect and serve. Once again you see the current administration (Kevin Reeves) rewarding bad behavior as did( Mike Edmonson ). It is a proven fact that when you reward bad behavior you will get bad behavior. Just look at was once an honorable agency . A careful review of actions taken against Troopers who apparently have committed crimes will prove this.
There are other consequences to the above story. The Louisiana State Police stands to loose access to (N.C.I.C.) National Crime Information Center and other Federal data bases for violating the Privacy and Security Act.
It is evident that there is no command staff that is willing to take the necessary actions to bring HONOR back to the State Police!
Where are you JBE and your HONER CODE?
THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL!
I have a question: If the Louisiana State Police lost access to National Crime Information Center and other Federal data bases for violating the Privacy and Security Act, do you think any Louisiana elected official would even notice? Based on recent reports, that loss might be an advantage for LSP bad guys and or some notable dirty Louisiana politicians.
Tom, not only did you scoop WBRZ TV on this story, but you are in synchronicity (if that’s a word) with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which has just released an opinion having to do with the SLAPP statute. I’ve attached a copy of that opinion to this comment, if you care to read it. In the case which you report, the statute would be designed to halt or discourage someone who’s unhappy with reporting on their hijinks. In the case I’ve enclosed, it’s on a more narrow issue of when a judicial proceeding is of public interest (in this case, it was a messy divorce and therefore not found to be of public interest). BUT, having read the entire statute and the case, i’m inclined to say HOORAY, our legislators and courts have a backbone after all. There is at least someone out there who is willing to put a law in force which would discourage suits that are designed to discourage reporting on matters of public interest.
To the interesting question (well, to lawyers) of how WBRZ and its doubtless well-paid lawyers managed to miss a deadline for filing an answer, we’ll have to look further.
Back in my days of practice, I had a default judgment taken against my client in the very same parish. It was overturned on appeal. (In my case, the plaintiff had neglected to give us notice of the suit, tsk tsk.) However, the most interesting part of this one seems to be why the default judgment was granted “in chambers.” Such defaults are supposed to be in open court, when the bailiff has called the name of the missing party and had no one respond, and then and only then does the party in attendance put on the record a prima facie case of the evidence they have to support the default judgment. The judge can then say, well, Mr. Plaintiff, you look like you have enough evidence in the record that I could (if I stretched) find for you. And, considering your opposite party has not filed an answer and hasn’t appeared, I’ll grant your judgment.
Default judgments are ripe for hanky panky. That’s why the court has to build a record, which the aggrieved party can then submit to the higher court.
Peace George
Click to access 17CC0482.OPN.pdf
My opinion: WBRZ knew it was useless to even try to file a reply in a Livingston Parish Court given who the attorney representing Mr. Burns was. There’s a pretty hefty background of seemingly preferential treatment in LP courts with attorneys from that group. By “hefty”, I mean questionable. Feel free to look up cases in LP with Bankston or anyone affiliated, especially Mack. Judgments go in their favor by a very wide margin, especially in Oglesbee’s family court (maybe because he was a law partner of Mack’s), and it’s known and often joked about in LP that you won’t get a fair shake in those courts against those attorneys.
I wonder why?
JMO, but they knew they would end up in Appeals anyway, so why bother?
That is some big allegations you have there about the lawyers and the court system. If this is so true looks like you should provide some proof smarty. Sounds like me you are close to this person and still have some hang up about them or you are jealous of them. But again very strong allegations being made here about the lawyers and the judge and courts
Imagine another Trooper involved in illegal activity, marginally disciplined and now he blames the media for making his actions public.. So Sad To See what State Police has turned into..
Not all state police
Hmmmmmm…….so one can sue the media for telling the truth? For reporting on public record? Because…..wait, what was the reason?? Oh, he and his wife were embarrassed?? Funny how this judgment was signed in chambers. Sounds eerily familiar to the one-sided custody case with his children….the custody that was of no interest to him until Child Support Enforcement began garnishing his wages so he could no longer dangle child support over his ex’s head. And the warrant he signed for his ex-wife’s arrest, without evidence or explanation, while in uniform and in his LSP vehicle. The arrest that was made on a Friday night so she would have to sit in jail before seeing a judge the following week. The arrest that a judge signed for her release late into a Friday night because it was completely unwarranted. The arrest charge that the DA refused to even touch….because there was no evidence or true reason for it. The arrest that was made in revenge of her speaking up and filing internal affairs complaints against his illegal actions. The arrest that LSP has still not addressed through internal affairs. The arrest that was included in an IA complaint, yet they chose to only address the misuse of a computer system……which apparently takes nearly a year to investigate (State Police Commission’s policy is 60 days) and only turned out a decision after media made a public records request for a decision. The arrest that he was allowed to sweep under a rug. Can you or I go sign a warrant and have someone arrested with ZERO explanation or evidence? I think not!! Working a personal agenda and abusing the system to do it is apparently not frowned upon by our authorities. seems to me our judicial system gives preference to those with a title. Seems almost as if our judicial system supports the bullying of average citizens by men with a badge🤔🤔. Seems to me that LSP holds its officers above the law and, when they’re busted red-handed, chooses to not punish them as the average citizen would get punished. 64 hours of unpaid leave (basically a week of vacation) for over 50 felonies…..how would you or I fare against such PROVEN allegations??? And then sue the media because he’s embarrassed? Embarrassed that he got caught and everyone knows the TRUTH? Awwww, poor guy.
What is done in darkness always comes out in the light😳
Ha this sounds like a disgruntled ex wife to me