Eminem v. Bailey

Overlawyered declares that Eminem prevailed before the trial court and Michigan Court of Appeals “because most fans would not take Eminem's story of a vicious attack seriously.” 

The court said:

Examined in the context of the song lyrics as a whole, defendant’s story contains a number of signals that would convey to a reasonable person that it should not be taken literally.

Amazingly, the plaintiff admitted at a deposition, that, in fact, he did bully a younger Slim Shady.

The opinion of the court can be found here.  This opinion contains an interesting discussion of the tort of “false light” which anyone who is into this stuff should read.  It concludes that the plaintiff cannot prevail because the “substantial truth doctrine” operates to divest the plaintiff, with his affidavit that he was "not a bully" of a question of material fact (and contradicted his deposition testimony).

The court concludes:

In light of plaintiff’s admissions that he “picked on” defendant when defendant was in the fourth grade and that plaintiff was part of a group at school that did “bully type things” such as pushing defendant down, we uphold the trial court’s determination that no genuine issue of material fact was shown relative to this issue. Plaintiff’s reliance on his affidavit for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact is misplaced. Plaintiff’s averment that he did not bully defendant was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact because it contradicted his earlier deposition testimony.... Plaintiff offered no evidence to refute defendant’s claims in his deposition that plaintiff was bigger than him, shoved him into walls, called him names, took his orange juice, and knocked over his books.

A reasonable person could interpret the uncontested facts as indicating that plaintiff, individually and as part of a group, bullied defendant. A “bully” is a “quarrelsome, overbearing person who badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” ... Because the literal truth yields the same effect as the sting of the song lyrics, plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact under the substantial truth doctrine.

The ICP was not involved in the writing of this post.

Comments

[Ray]

DeAngelo’s lawsuit is through
Because Eminem’s rap was true.
Minor embellishments in the story,
Making the details a bit more gory,
Didn’t change the essential truth
That DeAngelo was a bully in his youth.
So Eminem didn’t need DeAngelo’s permission,
‘Cause the rap was true by DeAngelo’s admission.