229 A.3d 494
D.C.2020Background
- Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele/Orbis to conduct opposition research; Steele produced the "Steele Dossier," including CIR 112, accusing Alfa principals (Fridman, Aven, Khan) of close, illicit ties to Putin.
- Steele shared the dossier with media, government officials, and Senator McCain; BuzzFeed later published the dossier in full.
- Appellants sued Steele/Orbis for defamation based on CIR 112; appellees filed a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. Anti‑SLAPP Act (§§ 16‑5501–5505).
- The Superior Court granted the Anti‑SLAPP dismissal, holding the Act applied (speech to media = advocacy on a public issue), that appellants are limited‑purpose public figures, and that they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence actual malice.
- The court denied appellants’ request for targeted discovery under § 16‑5502(c)(2), finding appellants did not show it was likely discovery would enable them to defeat the motion; this appeal followed and the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Anti‑SLAPP Act apply to publication of CIR 112? | Anti‑SLAPP should not apply to "raw intelligence" facts; not "communicating views." | Publication to media is communicating views to the public on a matter of public interest. | Act applies under §16‑5501(1)(B): CIR 112 communicated a view to the public on a public‑interest issue. |
| At Anti‑SLAPP stage, may court decide public‑figure status? | Public‑figure is an affirmative defense; plaintiffs need not prove it at this stage. | Special motion requires testing likelihood of success, so public‑figure status (and heightened fault) is evaluated now. | Court may decide public‑figure status at Anti‑SLAPP stage; doing so is proper. |
| Are appellants limited‑purpose public figures and thus required to prove actual malice? | Appellants argued controversy centered on Trump‑Russia election matters so public‑figure status is improper or narrow. | Defendants argued a broader preexisting controversy (oligarchs’ ties to Kremlin) and appellants had prominent roles. | Appellants are limited‑purpose public figures under Waldbaum/Moss; CIR 112 was germane to that controversy; must show actual malice. |
| Did appellants proffer clear and convincing evidence of actual malice or justify targeted discovery? | Evidence of anonymous/unverified sourcing, biased motive (opposition research), and post‑hoc statements about dossier accuracy justify inference of actual malice and targeted discovery. | These facts do not suffice to show appellees entertained serious doubts; discovery should be denied absent a showing that targeted discovery is likely to enable defeat of the motion. | Appellants failed to show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and did not meet the high §16‑5502(c)(2) standard for targeted discovery; denial and dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016) (explains Anti‑SLAPP special‑motion procedure, burden shifting, and limited discovery regime)
- Doe No. 1 v. Burke, 91 A.3d 1031 (D.C. 2014) (defines "issue of public interest" in Anti‑SLAPP context)
- Gertz v. Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (distinguishes general and limited‑purpose public figures)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (establishes actual‑malice standard for public‑figure defamation plaintiffs)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (unverified anonymous source alone does not show actual malice absent reason to doubt)
- Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (adopted test for limited‑purpose public figures: public controversy, scope, plaintiff's role, and germane defamation)
- Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 1990) (adopts Waldbaum framework for limited‑purpose public‑figure analysis)
- Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 822 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (single unverified source does not establish actual malice absent obvious reasons to doubt)
- Harte‑Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (actual malice may be shown by deliberate avoidance of the truth or purposeful falsity)