McKee v. Cosby
236 F. Supp. 3d 427
D. Mass.2017Background
- Plaintiff Katherine McKee sues Defendant Bill Cosby for defamation over a six-page Singer Letter responding to a Daily News article about her rape allegation from the 1970s.
- Singer Letter, written by Cosby’s counsel, criticized the Daily News and publicly cited facts to undermine McKee’s credibility; it also directed readers to sources and stated the letter was a confidential legal communication.
- The Daily News published articles on December 22, 2014 about the Singer Letter; outlets worldwide repeated aspects of the Letter’s content.
- McKee resided in Michigan when the Letter circulated and later moved to Nevada; the action invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The court analyzes choice of law to determine Michigan substantive law applies, concludes McKee’s harm occurred while domiciled in Michigan, and grants Cosby’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The case is part of related proceedings Green v. Cosby and involves First Amendment protections for opinion and disclosure of non-defamatory facts behind opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs the defamation claims (choice of law/domicile). | McKee’s harms occurred in Michigan; domicile analysis favors Michigan law. | Plaintiff’s intent to move to Nevada suggests Nevada or Massachusetts ties. | Michigan law governs substantive defamation analysis. |
| Are the Singer Letter opinions actionable defamation under First Amendment and Michigan law? | Letter’s statements about McKee’s credibility are factual assertions liable to misstatement. | Letter constitutes protected opinion based on disclosed non-defamatory facts. | The statements about credibility are protected opinions; not actionable. |
| Do the individual counts in the Amended Complaint state defamation claims? | Various statements alleging lack of credibility and manipulation were defamatory. | Most statements are either non-actionable opinions or substantially true under the related facts. | Counts asserting credibility claims and certain misquotations are non-actionable; others not alleged with required malice. |
| Does the Letter’s disclosure of underlying facts immunize the opinions under First Amendment standards? | Undisclosed defamatory facts implied by opinions. | Non-defamatory facts were disclosed, immunizing the opinions. | The Letter adequately disclosed the factual basis for opinions; immunized from liability. |
| Is the Letter protected by any privilege (litigation/conditional privileges)? | Letter is defamatory beyond privilege scope. | Privileges apply; Letter is a responsive, protected publication. | Privileges and First Amendment protections apply; not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (clarifies the necessity of provable facts for defamation and the role of opinions vs. facts)
- Piccone v. Bartels, 785 F.3d 766 (1st Cir. 2015) (disclosure of non-defamatory facts underlying opinion may immunize the opinion)
- Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publ’ns, 953 F.2d 724 (1st Cir. 1992) (assesses when the entirety of a publication conveys opinion based on disclosed facts)
- Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 1997) (protects opinion where underlying facts are disclosed and no undisclosed defamatory facts are implied)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (substantial truth and quotation handling; distinguishes false facts from opinion)