Curtis Pub. Company v. Butts

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1964 · Torts

242 F. Supp. 390 (1964)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsLibelCivil ProcedureRule 60(b)newly discovered evidenceactual malicepublic officialimpeachment evidence

Facts

Defendant sought post-judgment relief in a libel action, arguing that later depositions and a letter showed inconsistencies in the trial testimony of Dr. Frank A. Rose and Coach Paul Bryant concerning a March 6, 1963 letter and Bryant's recollection of a September 1962 telephone call to plaintiff Butts. Defendant claimed this evidence supported its justification defense and showed trial testimony was false. Defendant also argued that plaintiff's filing of a cross-appeal after consenting to remittitur justified relief, and that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan changed libel law in a way that required a new trial. The opinion also describes plaintiff as former Director of Athletics at the University of Georgia, employed through the athletic association rather than as a public officer.

Issue

Whether defendant was entitled to Rule 60(b) relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence impeaching key witnesses, plaintiff's filing of a cross-appeal after remittitur, or the Supreme Court's intervening decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Also, whether Sullivan required vacating the libel judgment on the theory that plaintiff was a public official or because actual malice had not been shown.

Rule

To obtain a new trial for newly discovered evidence, the movant must show that the evidence was discovered since trial, that the movant exercised reasonable diligence, that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, that it is material, and that it would probably produce a different result. A prior decision governs only when it is in point and similar in controlling facts. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan requires proof of actual malice for a public official to recover for defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct, but does not bar recovery where actual malice is shown.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A magazine loses a defamation trial in federal court in Dallas. Two months later, it finds internal emails from the plaintiff's former assistant that existed before trial and could have been obtained through document requests, but the magazine had never sought them in discovery.

Should the court most likely grant relief under Rule 60(b)(2)?

Explanation. To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence was discovered since trial and that the movant exercised reasonable diligence. The majority opinion denied relief where the documents existed before trial and could have been obtained under liberal discovery rules. A notice of appeal does not strip the district court of power to consider and deny the motion.