José A. Valdez files lawsuit against Shustring Productions for defamation, emotional distress

 

By Tom Moore

 

Former Community Action Agency director and Laredo Independent School District trustee José A. Valdez has filed a lawsuit against María Eugenia Guerra and Shustring Productions, Inc., for an editorial written by Guerra in the May 2003 issue of LareDOS. Guerra is the owner and publisher of LareDOS.

In the cited editorial, Guerra examined the fact that Valdez was among the 11 applicants for the then-open position of Webb County Road and Bridge Superintendent. The editorial also questioned the wisdom of such a choice, in light of Valdez ' alleged mismanagement of Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs funds during his tenure as CAA director.

Valdez is suing for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Valdez ' suit, which was filed in the 341 st District Court, states that Guerra portrayed Valdez “as an individual that was involved along with other individuals in criminal activity” and that it “also projected him as a person of ill-repute and a thief and a corrupt public administrator.”

The suit also contends that as a result of the cited editorial, Valdez “has suffered actual damages including lost income and employment benefits in the past and future, mental anguish, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of reputation.”

According to attorney Armando Lopez, who represents Shustring Productions, Inc., and Guerra, Shustring in its filed response to the lawsuit contends that the LareDOS editorial is “a true, accurate, and reasonable comment or criticism of an official act or a public official or other matter of public concern involving, among other concerns, the applications for the Webb County position of Road and Bridge Administrator.”

The response further contends that “at the heart of the May 2003 opinion column is the constitutionally protected principle that there should be a strong interest in debate on public issues, and a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position to significantly influence the resolution of those issues.”

“Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion,” said Lopez. “Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. In this sense, the article and its discussion of the plaintiff's previous position as the director of the Webb County Community Action Agency fits within the definition of pubic official, as set out by the United States Supreme Court, as a person who, at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees, has or appears to the public to have substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.”

The case is not yet set for trial.