Was A 'Law & Order' Episode Ripped Too Closely From The Headlines?

Posted by Eriq Gardner

There was an interesting decision yesterday in New York State Supreme Court with potential to change the way that fictional television shows and films based on real-life headlines are handled.

Justice Marilyn Shafer of State Supreme Court in Manhattan denied to a motion by "Law & Order" creator Dick Wolf to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an attorney who sued for "libel-in-fiction" defamation.

New York attorney Ravi Batra brought the suit based on an "L&O" episode where a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge accepts cash bribes from a bald, Indian-American lawyer named Ravi Patel. In real life, Batra had close connections with a New York politician who allegedly accepted bribes and was said to have influence over a a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge. 

Batra argued "libel-in-fiction," a legal doctrine that holds that a claimant can sue if false statements are made about a fictional character with an identifiable real-life counterpart. Batra claimed that “because of the uniqueness of his name, ethnicity and appearance,” any viewer watching the episode and familiar with the news would identify the character with Mr. Batra.

Wolf's lawyers argued the similarities were "abstract," but in her opinion, Justice Shafer disagreed, saying there was “a reasonable likelihood that the ordinary viewer, unacquainted with Batra personally, could understand Patel’s corruption to be the truth about Batra.”

In an interview with the NY Times, Batra called this a "landmark case."

That might be premature, as the judge's order only moves the case to the discovery phase, but if Wolf ultimately loses, future programs may have to be a bit more careful.