Atlanta Libel Lawyer Goes to Bat for Families of JonBenét Ramsey, Natalee Holloway
Wood confidentially settled a $750 million defamation suit against CBS and secured a favorable order in Alabama in an ongoing case against Oxygen Media.
January 09, 2019 at 03:57 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Atlanta libel lawyer L. Lin Wood said he notched a settlement against one television network and a preliminary win against another over TV specials featuring unsolved crimes—cases that he said should serve as a warning to other media companies.
In civil cases associated with two of the most sensational unsolved crime mysteries of the past two decades, Wood on Jan. 4 consummated a settlement agreement in a $750 million defamation case against CBS and on Jan. 7 secured a favorable ruling from an Alabama judge who refused to dismiss a fraud and outrage case against cable crime network Oxygen Media.
Wood confirmed that he reached a confidential settlement with CBS in a 2016 defamation case he filed on behalf of Burke Ramsey, the older brother of slain 6-year-old child beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey. In Alabama, Wood represents Beth Holloway, the mother of 19-year-old Natalee Holloway, who disappeared during a high school trip to Aruba in 2005 and whose body has never been found.
Wood filed the Ramsey and Holloway lawsuits after the networks revisited JonBenet's slaying and Natalee Holloway's disappearance in multipart television retrospectives intended to appeal to a growing audience for sensational crime stories.
“In an era of fake news, in continually deteriorating discussions of issues on social media and the Internet, these cases are vitally important to send a message to the public that there are lines you cannot cross without being held legally accountable,” Wood said.
Fraud and Outrage Claims
In the Alabama case, Chief Judge Karon Owen Bowdre of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Oxygen Media's motion to dismiss Holloway's fraud and outrage claims stemming from the cable network's alleged ruse in securing her DNA in 2017 by leading her to believe her daughter's missing body had finally been found. An outrage claim, while extremely limited, allows for the recovery of damages for emotional distress that was either intentional or reckless and so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
“Even the most deeply wounding conduct rarely gives rise to civil liability for the tort of outrage,” Bowdre wrote in her order. “Suffering offense from truly insulting conduct is sometimes an unfortunate fact of life, so the law understandably hesitates to impose money damages for causing emotional distress in the minds of others. But, in very limited circumstances, the law recognizes extremely egregious conduct that no person should be expected to endure without some sort of civil justice. This case plausibly presents such outrageous conduct.”
“The First Amendment does not protect against a claim for outrage brought by a public figure if the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true,” Bowdre added. “Ms. Holloway has alleged facts showing that defendants plausibly acted with actual malice.”
Wood partner Taylor Wilson called Bowdre's ruling “well-reasoned” and “a huge victory” for Holloway, adding Oxygen Media “crossed the line.”
“Media efforts to profit off the tragic disappearance of Natalee must end,” he said. “As the years have gone by since Natalee's 2005 disappearance, some members of the media have continued to ratchet up the sensationalism in their efforts for ratings and money.”
Oxygen Media lawyers John Thompson of Birmingham, Alabama, firm Lightfoot Franklin & White, and Cameron Stracher of Westport, Connecticut, could not be reached for comment.
Wood said he sued on Holloway's behalf after she was persuaded to supply a DNA sample, allegedly because a friend of a suspect in her daughter's disappearance had produced bone fragments that were supposedly her daughter's from an Aruba burial site. In reality, the fragments were from a boar's head, according to the complaint. “They failed to disclose who had discovered the bones, that the Aruban authorities had declared the bones to be animal bones or that Beth's DNA would be used on television,” Wood said.
“I don't believe there is any mother of a missing child who ever gives up hope that her child will be found or, at least, her body will be discovered,” Wood said. “Every mother clings to the belief, however slim or however long, that her child will be found.” To “dangle the prospects in front of Natalee's mother that they may have found Natalee's body and then to solicit her DNA” constitutes “the type of outrageous, egregious conduct that civilized society cannot and should not tolerate,” Wood said.
A Ramsey Retrospective
Wood said Burke Ramsey's settlement with CBS includes a confidentiality clause that bars him from discussing the terms. Wood filed the case after CBS aired a four-hour retrospective over two nights in 2016.
The episodes resurrected long discredited theories that Ramsey killed his younger sister, Wood said. Ramsey was 9 years old when his sister died.
Wood has represented Ramsey since 1999 and previously settled defamation claims he filed on Ramsey's behalf against tabloids including The Star, its corporate parent, American Media Inc.; The Globe and its parent companies, The New York Post and Court TV. All the settlements were confidential.
CBS counsel Charles Tobin of Ballard Spahr in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment. A CBS spokesman said the case was “amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.”
The case, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan, settled after the presiding judge denied CBS's motion for a summary disposition dismissing the case. In his order, Judge David Groner rejected CBS's arguments that the network retrospective rested on constitutionally protected expression of opinion and theories concerning how JonBenét might have been killed.
“The mere qualification of a sentence with the phrase 'in my opinion' does not eliminate the impact on the subject of the allegedly defamatory content,” Groner concluded.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250