Appellate panel hears dispute over YouTube narration and fair‑reports privilege in EWU Media case

An appellate panel heard oral argument in Law Offices of John Randolph, PLLC v. E W U Media, LLC over whether a 14‑minute YouTube video that pairs police body‑camera footage with added narration is protected by the fair‑reports privilege or instead gives rise to a defamation claim.

Michelle Earl Hubbard, counsel for appellant EWU Media, told the panel she sought reversal of the trial court's denial of the UPIPA motion and asked the court to award fees, costs and sanctions. "What we're asking you to do, your honor, today, your honors, is to overturn the trial court's denial of the UPIPA motion," Hubbard said, adding that the video "consists entirely of police body camera video" and that the court must review the item "as a whole." She argued plaintiffs waived some issues below and that courts should not act as "super editors" to police how a story was told.

Respondent counsel Greg Miller asked the panel to affirm and remand for trial, contending the video and its later‑prepared narration omitted material police‑report context about the subject's mental health. "They did not include in the narrative his mental health care issues," Miller said, and he pointed the panel to police‑report exhibits (listed in briefing as CP 122, 123, 124, 125, 133) that he said would have given viewers a different framing.

The judges pressed both sides on how to apply established law. One panel member summarized the concern about framing and context: "The narrative is entirely focused on child predation," the judge said, noting that when the footage is viewed with surrounding records the subject appears to be suffering a mental‑health episode. That judge asked whether the added narration changed the "sting" or gist of the piece in a way that would defeat the fair‑reports privilege.

Hubbard responded that even if some material were withheld, the court must determine whether the withheld material was false and whether it would have altered the implication of the story; she cited appellate precedent and argued defendants are protected from judicial rewriting of how they told the story. The appellant also noted the program includes an on‑screen disclaimer and that the video publisher described the presentation as being for entertainment in a screenshot shown to the court.

Miller and other panel members emphasized timing and availability of records: counsel said the video was prepared two years after the incident and therefore could—and should—have drawn on police reports in the record. The exchange focused on whether omissions in narration were sufficiently specific and provable to support a defamation claim or whether the fair‑reports privilege and First Amendment protections bar relief.

Neither side sought a ruling from the bench at the hearing. The panel heard final rebuttal scheduling and the argument concluded without an oral decision recorded.

Why it matters: The case raises questions about how courts should treat short, viral‑style video packages that juxtapose official records with narrator commentary and whether omission of contextual details—such as mental‑health records—can change the legal "gist" of a report enough to support defamation claims. A ruling could affect publishers, small news outlets and creators who post body‑camera footage with added narration or editorial framing.

Next step: The panel took no on‑the‑record ruling at argument; a written disposition or order is expected later.