Mojica-Escobar v. Roca ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 96-1497
ABIGAIL MOJICA-ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GASPAR ROCA, ET AL.,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Selya, Circuit Judge.
Nicol s Nogueras, Jr. for appellant.
Juan R. Marchand-Quintero, with whom Rivera Cestero &
Marchand Quintero was on brief for appellees.
May 7, 1997
Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant contends that summary
Per Curiam.
judgment was improvidently granted to the defendant newspaper, El
Vocero de Puerto Rico, and its publisher in this defamation and
invasion of privacy suit governed by Puerto Rico law. Upon
careful consideration of the record, appellate briefs, and
arguments in this case, we affirm the district court's grant of
summary judgment to the defendants for substantially the same
reasons provided in its Opinion and Order. See Mojica Escobar v.
Roca, 926 F. Supp. 30 (D. P.R. 1996).
Regardless of whether the appellant's spouse's
political prominence was sufficient to render the appellant a
public figure, the falsity of the alleged defamatory statements
was a necessary element appellant had to prove in order to
sustain relief under Puerto Rico defamation law. See Ayala-
Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 98 (1st Cir.
1996). Appellant, the non-movant, failed to come forward with
anything other than the most conclusory and vague allegations of
falsity, and thus fell far short of establishing the existence of
a "genuine issue for trial" with regard to the falsity of the
newspaper articles, making summary judgment appropriate. LeBlanc
v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841-42 (1st Cir. 1993).
We are unmoved by appellant's argument that the
defendants' failure to respond to a discovery request prevented
her from coming forward with concrete evidence to rebut the
summary judgment motion. The newspaper articles giving rise to
appellant's defamation claims were published and widely
distributed, and it is impossible to imagine that for want of the
information sought in her unanswered discovery request,1
appellant was unable to proffer any competent evidence tending to
show that any of defendants' statements were false, in light of
the fact that, after all, the statements mainly concerned the
appellant's (and her husband's) finances -- matters which
appellant should be in a fine position to address. For example,
appellant failed to come forward with any proof that defendants'
statements regarding the financing of the purchase of a house in
Orlando, Florida, were false, when it is reasonable to assume
that appellant possesses records regarding that purchase -- a
purchase which she claims she herself made.
With regard to appellant's invasion of privacy claim,
we note that the right to privacy as set forth in sections 1, 8,
and 10 of Article II of the Puerto Rico Constitution is an
important right that is firmly safeguarded under Puerto Rico
Supreme Court case law. See, e.g., Col n v. Romero Barcel , 112
D.P.R. 573 (1982) (finding violation of privacy right where
photograph of murdered relative was publicized for purposes of
crime-prevention advertisement). Nevertheless, as the district
court has stated, the photograph of appellant's house, which
appellant does not deny was taken from a public area outside of
the house, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy,
1 In the unanswered discovery request that is reproduced at
length in her appellate brief, appellant mainly requests
information as to how the defendant newspaper's reporters went
about obtaining information about the appellant. In the
circumstances of this case, however, such information is not
needed to prove the falsity of the newspaper's published
statements.
-3-
for it is not "unreasonably intrusive." Dopp v. Fairfax
Consultants, Ltd., 771 F. Supp. 494, 497 (D. P.R. 1990) (applying
Puerto Rico's constitutional privacy guarantees). There is also
no legal support for appellant's claim of invasion of privacy
based on the receipt of a single telephone call from an El Vocero
reporter.
Affirmed. Costs on appeal are granted to appellees.
Affirmed.
-4-