Court Rejects Defamation Suit Against CBS Over ‘CSI’ Episode

The 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, California ruled that a couple cannot sue CBS over allegedly defamatory statements made in the script for an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

CSI Files previously reported that real estate agents Scott and Melinda Tamkin filed a $6 million lawsuit against CBS and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation writer/producer Sarah Goldfinger for defamation and invasion of privacy after their names appeared online in connection with the season nine episode “Deep Fried and Minty Fresh”. The episode featured a married couple in the real estate business. The character of Scott was described in casting materials as a “hard-drinking extensive porn-watching man,” and the death of the Melinda character “may have occurred during kinky sex.”

The final episode replaced the Tamkins’ last name with “Tucker”, but the couple argued that the damage had already been done when their names were circulated online. They filed a lawsuit against the network, which CBS tried to block under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. The trial court denied the network’s motion, but California’s second appellate district in Los Angeles reversed the decision on March 1.

Goldfinger met the Tamkins while trying to buy a home in 2005, and she explained that it is common for writers to use real names as placeholders while writing scripts. The Tamkins were the only married real estate agents she knew, so she included their names in early drafts of the script so she could remember the characters. Goldfinger knew the Standards and Practices department would edit the names for legal reasons, and “Tamkin” became “Tucker” before the First Draft of the script was broadly released. However, the names Scott and Melinda Tamkin were distributed in casting “breakdowns” based on the incomplete preliminary draft of the episode’s script, which resulted in the real estate agents’ names being circulated with episode spoilers on fan websites.

Despite the error of distributing the Tamkins’ real names with casting materials, the court ruled in favor of CBS. Justice Nora Manella wrote that the physical and descriptive characteristics from the casting breakdowns were insufficient to show that the fictional characters were based on the real people. She added:

We also conclude that no reasonable person who read the casting synopses and then saw the television broadcast would have understood the fictional characters portrayed in episode 913 to be plaintiffs. The casting synopses would have revealed that the characters were initially named Scott and Melinda Tamkin, but as we previously concluded, no reasonable person would have understood from the casting synopses that the fictional Tamkins were in fact the real-life Tamkins. If a person were suspicious that the fictional Tamkins were in fact plaintiffs, episode 913 would not have confirmed that suspicion, because the additional descriptive depictions (Scott’s use of high fluoride toothpaste and Melinda’s wine-drinking and running) are not sufficiently unique and the episode included other differences, such as a different locale and the absence of children.

For more information, visit Courthouse News Service or Leagle.com. Thanks to Speedystokesgirl from TalkCSI for the heads up.