993 A.2d 778 (2010) 201 N.J. 500

Thomas John SALZANO, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant,
v.
NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP INC., d/b/a The Record, NorthJersey.com, Malcolm Borg, Stephen A. Borg, Martha McKay, and Jonathan Markey, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, and
Glen Ridge Voice, Inc. and Frank A. Orechio, Defendants.

A-78/79 September Term 2008

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued October 14, 2009. Decided May 11, 2010.

*780 Bruce S. Rosen, Florham Park, argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents (McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli, attorneys; Jennifer A. Borg, Hackensack, and Dina L. Sforza, of counsel; Mr. Rosen, Kathleen A. Hirce, Katherine M. Jensen, Florham Park, and Patrice E. LeTourneau on the briefs).

Thomas John Salzano argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Cafferty argued the cause for amici curiae New Jersey Press Association, ABC, Inc., Advance Publications, Inc., The New York Times Company, NYP Holdings, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., The Associated Press, Daily News, L.P., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., NBC Universal, Inc., Courthouse News Services, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, First Media, Alm Media, Inc. (soon to be known as Incisive Media, LLC), Newspaper Association of America, The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, The Association of American Publishers, *781 Inc., WPIX, Inc., and American Society of Newspaper Editors (Scarinci Hollenbeck and Robinson, Wettre & Miller, attorneys; Donald A. Robinson, of counsel; Mr. Cafferty, Nomi I. Lowy, and Lauren E. James, Lyndhurst, on the brief).

Justice LONG delivered the opinion of the Court.

The law of defamation is rooted in the notion that individuals should be free to enjoy their reputations unimpaired by false and defamatory attacks. In some instances, however, publications that otherwise would be actionable may escape liability because we recognize that the publisher is acting in furtherance of a socially important interest that is entitled to protection, even at the expense of uncompensated harm to a plaintiff's reputation. That protection from liability is described as a privilege. One such privilege is accorded to the publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding, or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public concern. That privilege, which is denominated the fair-report privilege, recognizes the value we place on the right of the public, in a democratic society, to be informed about a wide variety of official matters. It attaches where the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence that is recounted.

This case implicates the fair-report privilege insofar as defendants published information they gleaned from a complaint filed in bankruptcy court. Plaintiff argues that the privilege does not apply to initial court pleadings because there must be some "judicial action" to trigger its protections. The lower courts were divided on that issue. We hold that the principles that inform the fair-report privilege brook no exception for initial pleadings, which fall squarely within the protective sweep of the privilege.

We are also called upon to determine the nature of the fair-report privilege and whether it is subject to defeat by proof of malice. We hold that the fair-report privilege is a hybrid. It is conditional insofar as it attaches only to full, fair, and accurate reports of government proceedings. It becomes absolute once those prerequisites are met. Fault, sufficient to defeat the privilege, occurs when the publisher fails to do what is necessary to render the report full, fair, and accurate. If the publication, in fact, satisfies that standard, the state of mind of the publisher is irrelevant.

In this case, the portion of the challenged publications that was based upon a bankruptcy complaint was full, fair, and accurate, and thus, immune from a defamation suit because of the fair-report privilege. However, because the publications also contained defamatory information derived from sources other than the complaint, plaintiff may pursue his lawsuit in connection therewith.

I.

In June 2004, NorVergence, Inc. ("NorVergence"), a telecommunications company, abruptly laid off approximately 1,300 employees and disconnected the services it provided to thousands of small businesses. On June 30, 2004, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against NorVergence. On July 14, 2004, NorVergence consented to the entry of an order for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and the immediate conversion of the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). On November 4, 2004, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against NorVergence because of unfair and deceptive practices. The court entered default judgment against NorVergence *782 and determined that NorVergence caused injury of at least $172,997,758.

Plaintiff Thomas John Salzano is the son of the former chief managing officer/consultant of NorVergence, Thomas N. Salzano, and the nephew of the chief executive officer of NorVergence, Peter J. Salzano. Plaintiff was never an employee of NorVergence.

On March 1, 2006, the trustee for the bankrupt estate of NorVergence filed a complaint against plaintiff in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, joining plaintiff as a third-party defendant in the bankruptcy proceeding. More specifically, the complaint sought, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 548(a), 550(a) and N.J.S.A. 25:2-25(a), to avoid fraudulent transfers made to plaintiff, and to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the proceeds thereof.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff:

unlawfully diverted, converted and misappropriated [NorVergence]'s funds for his own personal benefit, and to the detriment of [NorVergence], by, inter alia, (i) applying two NorVergence checks, one in the amount of $61,200.00 dated July 1, 2003, and the other in the amount of $140,000.00 dated July 29, 2003, toward the purchase of his personal residence (the "Purchase Funds") located at 20 Argyle Street, Glen Ridge, NJ (the "Property") and (ii) by charging personal expenses, such as outings to bars and clubs, clothing and other personal expenses, between November 25, 2002 and March 24, 2004, to [NorVergence]'s American Express Business Gold/Platinum totaling $268,795.84, as well as utilizing other corporate credit cards in undisclosed amounts (the "Charges") (the Charges, together with the []Purchase Funds[], the "Misappropriated Funds.")

[]The Charges were on account of expenditures that were entirely unrelated to [NorVergence]'s business. [NorVergence] transferred $268,795.84 to the AMEX Account between January 13, 2003 and April 20, 2004 in order to pay for the Charges on [plaintiff]'s behalf.

On March 2, 2006, defendant, The Record, published a report with the headline, "Man accused of stealing $500,000 for high living," and the subheading "NorVergence funds were taken." The report, written by defendant Martha McKay, stated in its entirety:

The son of the mastermind behind NorVergence, a bankrupt Newark telecommunications firm, allegedly stole close to $500,000 from the company, using the money to pay for drinks, trips to area clubs and for a five-bedroom Glen Ridge house, according to court papers filed Wednesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Newark.

Thomas John Salzano, son of Thomas N. Salzano, the chief managing officer of bankrupt NorVergence, was accused of using two company checks—one in the amount of $61,200 dated July 1, 2003, and another for $140,000 dated July 29, 2003—to help pay for "the purchase of his personal residence located at 20 Argyle St., Glen Ridge," the papers said.

The complaint, filed by U.S. Trustee Charles Forman, also alleges that Thomas John Salzano used a NorVergence corporate American Express card to charge "personal expenses, such as outings to bars and clubs, clothing and other personal expenses" unrelated to NorVergence business.

The charges totaling $268,795 were made between November 25, 2002, and March 24, 2004.

Neither Forman nor Salzano could be reached for comment.

*783 NorVergence's abrupt bankruptcy in July 2004[] threw 1,300 people out of work and left thousands of small-business customers without phone and Internet service.

Legal battles raged when customers tried to get out of equipment leases that NorVergence had sold to more than 40 banks and leasing companies. In many cases, settlements have been reached, brokered by state attorneys general, providing some relief to deeply angry NorVergence customers.

Last year, a U.S[.] District Court ordered a $181.7 million default judgment against NorVergence in a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission.

Creditors assert the company owes $550 million.

Thomas John Salzano was never an employee of NorVergence, according to court papers. His father, Thomas N. Salzano, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant. His uncle, Peter J. Salzano, served as CEO.

Thomas John Salzano and his father started a Kenilworth business last year called Charity Snack, which also went belly-up.

The complaint filed Wednesday asks that Salzano repay what he allegedly took, plus punitive damages. In addition, the papers claim that because of his "unlawful misappropriation of [NorVergence's] funds, and fraudulent transfer[s] and unjust enrichment[,]" the house at 20 Argyle St. belongs to the trustee, whose job it is to recover any and all company assets.

The five-bedroom, three-bath home at 20 Argyle St. is listed for sale at $699,000, just reduced, according to a real estate Web site.

On the same date, the report was posted on the website of defendant NorthJersey.com, with the same headline but without the subheading. On March 9, 2006, the report was republished by defendant, Glen Ridge Voice, under the headline, "Argyle residence allegedly bought with stolen funds." It was also posted on the website of LeasingNews.org under the headline, "NorVergence BK charges Salzano son stealing $½ MM."^[1]

On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging defamation and associated torts against defendants North Jersey Media Group, Inc. ("NJMG"), which publishes The Record; Malcolm Borg, NJMG's CEO; Jonathan Markey, NJMG's president; NorthJersey.com; Stephen A. Borg, editor/publisher of The Record and NorthJersey.com; Martha McKay, staff reporter for The Record and author of the report; Glen Ridge Voice, Inc., which publishes Glen Ridge Voice; and Frank A. Orechio, the president of Glen Ridge Voice (collectively "defendants"). Plaintiff specifically contended that the following statements were false and defamatory:

1. The headline in The Record and on NorthJersey.com: "Man accused of stealing $500,000 for high living";

2. The subheading in The Record: "NorVergence funds were taken";

3. The headline in Glen Ridge Voice: "Argyle residence allegedly bought with stolen funds";

4. The headline on LeasingNews.org: "NorVergence BK charges Salzano son stealing $½ MM";

5. From the text of all of the reports: "The son of the mastermind behind NorVergence . . . allegedly stole close to $500,000 from the company. . ."; and

*784 6. From the text of all of the reports: "Thomas John Salzano and his father started a Kenilworth business last year called Charity Snack, which also went belly-up."

Plaintiff alleged that the statements were defamatory per se in that the use of the words "stealing," "stolen funds," and "taken" imputed criminal conduct to him; that the trustee's assertions were baseless and unsupported; that defendants republished them "intentionally, maliciously, and with reckless and/or negligent disregard of the truth"; and that defendants "knew or should have known of their falsity."

The complaint included one count of gross negligence for failure to "perform any due diligence or inquiry into the true nature of the adversarial complaint" and failure to "conduct a fair reading [of the complaint], by which a reasonable person would have determined" that the trustee neither alleged nor implied "`stealing' of any kind." In addition, the complaint claimed invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts) in connection with the report's multiple allusions to plaintiff's home address, where his mother and two minor sisters live, potentially putting them at risk of retaliation from "disgruntled ex-NorVergence employees and/or former customers." The complaint further claimed invasion of privacy (false light); malice; and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff sought presumed, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as costs, along with a retraction.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. R. 4:6-2(e). They argued, among other things, that their reporting was covered by the fair-report privilege, and that, in the alternative, the reports were not defamatory because they were accurate and not made maliciously.

The trial judge granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint in a rather brief opinion:

Look, I'm going to grant the motion as—with regard to the named defendants in the motion for several reasons. One is I do not feel that the defendant— that the plaintiff's position with regard to the statements is a reasonable interpretation of that and that, in any case, the—this matter is subject to the heightened standard of malice and that there is in fact no reasonable showing of any malice. I can understand why plaintiff is upset with regard to the reporting as not being totally, 100 percent accurate. But that's not the standard we apply. And based on the arguments presented I find that this matter—that the complaint does fail to state a cause of action in defamation with regard to these particular defendants. And I so rule.

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case for trial. Salzano v. N. Jersey Media Group Inc., 403 N.J.Super. 403, 958 A.2d 1023 (App.Div.2008). Although the panel concluded that the report was a full, fair, and accurate report of the bankruptcy complaint, it recognized the initial pleadings exception and declared that the fair-report privilege did not apply. Id. at 418, 421, 958 A.2d 1023. The panel further ruled that the malice standard is applicable with respect to the NorVergence bankruptcy related statements because the bankruptcy was a matter of public concern. Id. at 422, 958 A.2d 1023. Finally, the panel ruled that the claim regarding the allegations that the Kenilworth business "went belly-up" should not have been dismissed. Id. at 425, 958 A.2d 1023. With respect to that claim, the Appellate Division stated that it could not determine whether the malice standard was applicable on the scant record before it and remanded for the development of a *785 full record by the trial judge and for amendment of the complaint. Id. at 424-26, 958 A.2d 1023. Because the panel reversed the order of dismissal, it did not separately address plaintiff's remaining claims (i.e., invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress), except to note that "the parties may continue to pursue [those issues] in the trial court." Id. at 411 n. 2, 958 A.2d 1023.

Defendants petitioned for certification challenging the existence of the initial pleadings exception. Plaintiff cross-petitioned regarding the conclusion that the reports were full, fair, and accurate, and with respect to the application of the malice standard. We granted both petitions. 200 N.J. 476, 983 A.2d 201 (2009).

II.

On the petition, defendants argue that there is no initial pleadings exception to the fair-report privilege; to the extent that earlier case law recognized such an exception, it has been eclipsed by modern jurisprudence; the reports in this case were full, fair, and accurate, and thus cannot serve as the basis for a defamation action; if the privilege is deemed not to insulate any or all reports at issue here, malice is the standard that plaintiff must satisfy because the reports touched on matters of public concern. Amicus New Jersey Press Association is in fundamental agreement with defendants.

On the cross-petition, plaintiff argues that some judicial action must occur before the fair-report privilege operates; the initial pleadings exception is well-established and was properly applied; the reports were not full, fair, and accurate, and thus are not protected by the privilege; and because he is a private citizen he should not be held to the actual malice standard in his defamation suit.

III.

A defamatory statement is one that is false and harms the reputation of another such that it lowers the defamed person in the estimation of the community or deters third parties from dealing with that person. See Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282, 289, 537 A.2d 284 (1988); Restatement (Second) of Torts (hereinafter "Restatement") § 559 (1977). Defamation law generally imposes liability upon one who repeats or republishes the defamatory statements of another. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 461, 446 A.2d 469, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999, 103 S.Ct. 358, 74 L.Ed.2d 395 (1982); Restatement, supra, § 578. Indeed, earlier in our history, the common law placed "so high a premium on the protection of a person's reputation that it imposed strict liability for the publication of a defamatory statement." Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., Inc., 104 N.J. 125, 136, 516 A.2d 220 (1986) (citing W.P. Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 113 at 804 (5th ed. 1984)).

More recently, the United States Supreme Court has declared that publishers may not be held liable for certain defamatory statements without showing that they were at least negligent. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., [] 418 U.S. [323,] [] 346-47, 94 S.Ct. [2997,] [] 3010, 41 L.Ed.2d [789,] [] 809 [1974]. That declaration is consistent with the increasing awareness of the need for public information on a wide variety of issues.

Traditionally, the common law has accommodated that need by recognizing that some otherwise defamatory statements should be "privileged," i.e., that their publication does not impose liability on the publisher.

[Id. at 136, 516 A.2d 220.]

In short,

*786 the law of defamation has undergone dramatic changes to adjust to modern times—strict liability is now gone, fault must be proven, and the falsity of a defamatory statement is no longer presumed.. . . Nevertheless, reputation is still valued as essential to human dignity and worth. It is not a historical relic but remains important to the unique identity of every individual in our contemporary world.

[Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 490-91, 958 A.2d 427 (2008) (citation omitted).]

At issue here is the fair-report privilege, which protects the publication of defamatory matters that appear in a report of an official action or proceeding, or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public concern. The fair-report privilege reflects the judgment that the need, in a self-governing society, for free-flowing information about matters of public interest outweighs concerns over the uncompensated injury to a person's reputation. That public information rationale was elucidated by the United States Supreme Court:

[I]n a society in which each individual has but limited time and resources with which to observe at first hand the operations of his government, he relies necessarily upon the press to bring to him in convenient form the facts of those operations. Great responsibility is accordingly placed upon the news media to report fully and accurately the proceedings of government, and official records and documents open to the public are the basic data of governmental operations. Without the information provided by the press most of us and many of our representatives would be unable to vote intelligently or to register opinions on the administration of government generally. [Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 491-92, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1044, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, 347 (1975).]

Part and parcel of the public information theory is that no risk should be imposed on those who bring important public information forward. Medico v. Time, Inc., 643 F.2d 134, 142 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 836, 102 S.Ct. 139, 70 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981).

Also informing the fair-report privilege is the theory of public supervision, an analogue of the public information rationale, which Justice Holmes described as follows:

[The privilege is justified by] the security which publicity gives for the proper administration of justice. . . . It is desirable that the trial of causes should take place under the public eye, not because the controversies of one citizen with another are of public concern, but because it is of the highest moment that those who administer justice should always act under the sense of public responsibility, and that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself with his own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed.

[Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 394 (1884).]

Another reason for the fair-report privilege is the so-called "agency" or "public eye" theory: "[O]ne who reports what happens in a public, official proceeding acts as an agent for persons who had a right to attend, and informs them of what they might have seen for themselves." Medico, supra, 643 F.2d at 141. In other words, if a member of the citizenry "could have witnessed the defamation, he is entitled to be made aware of it." Id. at 141 n. 22.

The fair-report privilege is considered to be "one of the most powerful and frequently invoked common-law defenses," Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 8.67 (Thomson Reuters/West, 2d ed. 2008), and *787 is widely recognized in judicial decisions and by statute.^[2]

The privilege has deep roots in New Jersey. See, e.g., Schwarz Bros. Co. v. Evening News Publ'g Co., 84 N.J.L. 486, 496, 87 A. 148 (1913) (recognizing "reports of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, as are fair reports of debates in legislative bodies"). See also N.J.S.A. 2A:43-1^[3] (addressing privileged character *788 attaching to the publication by specified press defendants of judicial and other proceedings).

The first issue here, on which the courts below were divided, is whether the privilege applies to reports regarding the contents of filed pleadings in advance of any judicial action regarding those pleadings. Defendants answer that question in the affirmative and plaintiff in the negative.

Because New Jersey courts have looked to section 611 of the Restatement for guidance in applying the fair-report privilege, we begin our analysis there. See Costello, supra, 136 N.J. at 607, 643 A.2d 1012; Darakjian v. Hanna, 366 N.J.Super. 238, 245, 840 A.2d 959 (App.Div.2004); Fortenbaugh v. N.J. Press, Inc., 317 N.J.Super. 439, 448-49, 722 A.2d 568 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 160 N.J. 91, 733 A.2d 496 (1999); Orso v. Goldberg, 284 N.J.Super. 446, 451-52, 665 A.2d 786 (App.Div.1995); Molnar v. Star-Ledger, 193 N.J.Super. 12, 20, 471 A.2d 1209 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 99 N.J. 162, 491 A.2d 674 (1984). Section 611 provides:

The publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public concern is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported.

[Restatement, supra, § 611.]

Comment e to that section, in turn, prescribes:

[t]he publication . . . of the contents of preliminary pleadings such as a complaint or petition, before any judicial action has been taken is not within the rule stated in this Section. An important reason for this position has been to prevent implementation of a scheme to file a complaint for the purpose of establishing a privilege to publicize its content and then dropping the action.

[Restatement, supra, § 611 comment e.]

In Costello, in which the fair-report privilege was deemed inapplicable because the publication was not full, fair, and accurate, we commented, in dictum, that:

"[I]t is the prevailing view, with some few courts to the contrary, that a pleading or a deposition filed in a case but not yet acted upon may not be reported under the claim of privilege." Prosser & Keeton on Torts, supra, at § 115. To rule otherwise would promote the filing of lawsuits that would be promptly discontinued once the goal of public defamation or even extortion were achieved. Because the privilege does not apply to newly filed complaints, "[a] mere contemplated lawsuit not yet begun is clearly not enough" to trigger the privilege's protections. Ibid.

[Costello, supra, 136 N.J. at 611-12, 643 A.2d 1012.]

It is that dictum on which plaintiff relies for his view that we have adopted an initial pleadings exception. But in Costello we also said:

Neither party, however, has raised that issue. Furthermore[,] given our holding that the fair-report privilege does not apply because the article was not a "full, fair and accurate" report, we need not resolve that thorny issue.

[Id. at 612, 643 A.2d 1012.]

The issue in this case is the one left unresolved in Costello: Is an initial pleading within the protective sweep of the fair-report privilege?

In providing an answer, we note that in the early twentieth century, the initial pleadings exception was adopted in a number of jurisdictions. See Parsons, supra, 61 So. at 348; Meeker, supra, 135 P. at 458; Murphy, supra, 23 Haw. at 810-11; *789 Flues, supra, 135 N.W. at 1085-86; Sanford, supra, 61 N.E.2d at 6; Nixon, supra, 112 N.W. at 259; Byers v. Meridian Printing Co., 84 Ohio St. 408, 95 N.E. 917, 918 (1911), superseded by statute, Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 2317.05 (1953); A.H. Belo & Co., supra, 111 S.W. at 218; Ilsley, supra, 113 N.W. at 427 (reasoning that extending privilege to reports of initial pleadings that have not been brought before a court would permit protection of libelous and defamatory statements simply by filing complaint).

However, today among our sister jurisdictions, there is a clear trend away from recognizing the initial pleadings exception. Indeed, most modern court decisions have rejected that exception. See, e.g., Bull v. LogEtronics, Inc., 323 F.Supp. 115, 135 (E.D.Va.1971) (holding press release regarding allegations in initial pleadings privileged as fair and accurate account of issues in suit); Johnson, supra, 271 A.2d at 698 (applying fair-report privilege to publication of allegations contained in complaint for divorce); Solaia Tech., supra, 304 Ill.Dec. 369, 852 N.E.2d at 844 (joining "growing trend," declining to adopt initial pleadings exception); Hoeflicker, supra, 818 S.W.2d at 651-52 ("The Restatement position that a privilege does not attach for publication concerning the contents of a petition prior to any judicial action thereon has come under increasing attack."); Cox, supra, 723 P.2d at 240 (finding "the filing of a complaint was intended to be included within the phrase `judicial proceeding'"); Sahara Gaming Corp., supra, 984 P.2d at 168 (applying fair-report privilege to republication of complaint alleging fraud); April v. Reflector-Herald, Inc., 46 Ohio App.3d 95, 546 N.E.2d 466 (1988) (applying fair-report privilege to report of EEOC complaint for age discrimination); Weber, supra, 878 A.2d at 72 ("The fair report privilege extends to court pleadings, such as a complaint.") (citing First Lehigh Bank v. Cowen, 700 A.2d 498, 502 (Pa.Super. Ct.1997) ("We find no sense to the argument that newspapers, or other media groups, cannot report on pleadings prior to judicial action without opening themselves to a libel action.")), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 759, 903 A.2d 539 (Pa.2006); O'Brien, supra, 499 P.2d at 30 (holding in connection with initial pleadings exception, "we think the more recent trend of the law is to the contrary").

In all, the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue extend the fair-report privilege to encompass initial pleadings and filings.^[4]See Laurence H. Eldredge, The Law of Defamation, § 79(b)(1) (1978):

It is perfectly clear, with respect to cases decided since 1972, that the heavy weight of authority is contrary to the earlier rule, and is that the report of pleadings filed in court which have not yet come before a judicial officer and upon which no judicial action has been taken comes within the privilege to report "judicial proceedings". The trend is strongly in this direction.

[(quoted in Hanish v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., 487 F.Supp. 397, 401 (E.D.Pa.1980)).]

*790 The rationale for the modern approach is four-pronged according to Solaia:

First, the filing of a complaint is itself a public act. Second, the privilege serves the public's interest in the judicial system, and this interest begins with the filing of a complaint. Third, a judicial-action limitation on the privilege would purportedly decrease the risk of publishing scurrilous pleadings, but this limitation is ineffective: Simply because a suit has proceeded to the point where judicial action of some kind has taken place does not necessarily mean that the suit is less likely to be groundless and brought in bad faith. Fourth, the public has a sophisticated understanding of the court system and is capable of evaluating information gleaned from a complaint.

[Solaia, supra, 304 Ill.Dec. 369, 852 N.E.2d at 844 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).]

In addition, it has been recognized that a suit for malicious prosecution or malicious use of process may be instituted against those who file groundless lawsuits, thus providing an aggrieved plaintiff a remedy for defamation in an initial complaint and serving as a deterrent to filing groundless lawsuits. See, e.g., Hoeflicker, supra, 818 S.W.2d at 652 (rejecting initial pleadings exception partly because suit for malicious prosecution provides remedy for filing of groundless suits). Thus, "[t]he damage resulting from use of the filing of a complaint or petition to disseminate a libel is better addressed by aggressive pursuit of sanctions against attorneys and parties who make allegations in bad faith or without support than by permitting redress against a republisher." Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander, and Related Problems § 7.3.2.2.4. (PLI Press, 3d ed. 1999).

We now align ourselves with the weight of modern authority and hold that the fair-report privilege extends to defamatory statements contained in filed pleadings that have not yet come before a judicial officer. Indeed, the initial pleadings exception is at odds with the reality that the complaint is open to public view. See R. 1:38 (making court records public). "`[T]he presumption of openness to court proceedings requires more than a passing nod. Open access is the lens through which the public views our government institutions.'" Verni ex rel. Burstein v. Lanzaro, 404 N.J.Super. 16, 28, 960 A.2d 405 (App.Div.2008) (quoting Lederman v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 385 N.J.Super. 307, 323, 897 A.2d 362 (App. Div.2006)). "An open and transparent court system is an integral part of our democratic form of government. In a democratic society, the public has a right of access not only to our courts, but also to court records." Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Special Committee on Public Access to Court Records § 2.1.1 (Nov. 29, 2007). "The presumption of public access . . . attaches to all materials, documents, legal memoranda and other papers `filed' with the court that are relevant to any material issue involved in the underlying litigation . . . regardless of whether the trial court relied on them in reaching its decision on the merits." Lederman, supra, 385 N.J.Super. at 316-17, 897 A.2d 362. If the initial pleadings exception is retained, an anomalous result obtains: Public documents to which the citizens of our state have free access cannot be disseminated or reported on without risk of a lawsuit.

Because it is impossible for the citizenry to monitor all of the operations of our system of justice, we rely upon the press for vital information about such matters. Members of the public simply cannot attend every single court case and cannot *791 oversee every single paper filing, although clearly entitled to do so. Thus, it is critical for the press to be able to report fairly and accurately on every aspect of the administration of justice, including the complaint and answer, without fear of having to defend a defamation case and without the inhibitory effect of such fear.

That interpretation of the privilege more fully advances the principles informing it than any other view. Indeed, if a citizen presents himself at the local courthouse, there is no question but that he can see filed pleadings for himself. They are not sanitized nor are they filtered through a veracity lens. A full, fair, and accurate report of the contents of the pleadings, that is, what plaintiff claims and how defendant defends, places the citizen in the exact same position as if he were present on the scene. From that perspective, interposing an artificial barrier between the citizen and a truthful and accurate report of what is actually occurring makes no sense.

Likewise, the public information and supervisory rationales cannot receive full throat where the initial pleadings exception is honored. What our citizens need to know to carry out their role in a democracy is what, in fact, has been filed in court and how the judicial system responds to it. In that context, the truth or falsity of the initial allegations and defenses is essentially unimportant to those goals. To be sure, the righteousness of the initial pleadings ultimately will need to be resolved in court, but there is no warrant for those pleadings to receive disparate treatment from the rest of the ju