Former Britney Spears manager Osama "Sam" Lutfi's defamation suit against her mother could help decide whether negative publicity can so damage a plaintiff's reputation that he becomes “libel-proof.”

Sam Lutfi	Lynne Spears

In defending the suit, Lynne Spears has argued that the allegedly defamatory statements about Lutfi in her tell-all book “Through the Storm” merely repeated statements she made earlier in a February 2008 court declaration. “Through the Storm” was published in September 2008.

“The evidence will show that the book could not have been the cause of any harm to Lutfi, and that his reputation was already widely established well in advance of the book,” Spears said in an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Zaven V. Sinanian denied the motion last month, citing case law which says the “libel-proof” doctrine “is to be applied with caution, since so few plaintiffs will have so bad a reputation that they are not entitled to obtain redress for defamatory statements.” Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, 800 F.2d 298 (1986).

"The court declines to apply the 'libel-proof' doctrine to this case," Sivanian said in his order.

Spears filed a notice of appeal earlier this month. While California's state courts have not recognized the “libel-proof” doctrine, she says Lutfi meets the standard proposed by a Los Angeles federal judge.

“Depending upon the nature of the conduct, the number of offenses, and the degree and range of publicity received, there comes a time when the individual's reputation for specific conduct, or his general reputation for honesty and fair dealing is sufficiently low in the public's estimation that he can recover only nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements,” the judge said in Wynberg v. National Enquirer, 564 F. Supp. 924 (1982).

Lutfi alleged in his complaint that Spears published “Through the Storm” as part of a “smear campaign” designed to “destroy Lutfi and drive him out of Britney's life.” The book, he said, falsely stated that, in order to control Britney, he hid her cell phones and dog and disabled several of her cars.

“Since the publication of the Book, Lutfi has been subjected to unfathomable amounts of ridicule and public scorn,” the suit says.

But Spears contends the ridicule and scorn predates the publication of her book, going back to the publicity surrounding the court declaration she gave as part of the conservatorship proceeding which wrested control over Britney's affairs from Lutfi. A probate court judge issued a restraining order prohibiting him from communicating with Britney.

The “degree and range” of the publicity certainly seems to satisfy the Wynberg requirements. As Spears said in her anti-SLAPP motion,

Articles about the declaration –- and the declaration itself -– appeared on myriad internet sites ... There cannot be any question but that tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people learned about these facts in February 2008.

It's less obvious, though, that the “Svengali”-esque conduct attributed to Lutfi in the declaration is egregious enough to make him “libel-proof.” Unlike the plaintiff in Wynberg, he does not have a criminal record that would further establish a bad reputation.

If Spears had quoted the declaration in her book, the judicial privilege would have precluded Lutfi from suing her for defamation. “[N]o particular statutory privilege is suggested by the facts alleged, and Spears does not raise the issue,” Sinanian noted. 

Spears collaborated on the book with “Christian author” Lorilee Craker. If Craker relied on the declaration for the allegedly defamatory statements, that could also be a possible defense.

By Matthew Heller
8/22/09