2:20-cv-01466
D. Ariz.Dec 10, 2020Background
- Family Court appointed Dr. Carol Mellen as therapeutic interventionist in a divorce/custody matter; Mellen referred the adolescent to Shanna Sadeh, a licensed psychologist.
- The adolescent began treatment at Paradigm Treatment Center on July 15, 2019; Paradigm Medical Director Chelsea Neumann sent a letter to Sadeh and Dr. Mellen (the Letter) criticizing Sadeh as providing "unprofessional and psychologically harmful recommendations."
- Mother submitted the Letter to the family court, and the judge ordered Sadeh to stop providing services to the adolescent.
- Sadeh sued Paradigm, Neumann, and an associated entity in state court for defamation, false light, and tortious interference; the case was removed to federal court and Sadeh filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
- Court denied Sadeh's motion to seal the case and FAC; Paradigm's initial motion to dismiss was denied as moot; Paradigm's motion to dismiss the FAC was granted in part and denied in part—the court dismissed alleged defamatory statements in FAC paragraphs 72, 74, and 75 but allowed the remaining claims (including defamation based on other statements and false light) to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Seal | Sadeh: public filing could harm adolescent and Doe family; requests entire case or FAC be sealed | Paradigm: public access presumption; no compelling reasons to seal | Denied; generalized/speculative harm not compelling under common-law right of access and Kamakana test |
| Defamation (statements in FAC) | Sadeh: Letter and verbal statements falsely portrayed her as unprofessional and harmful, damaging reputation and career | Paradigm: statements are opinion/non-actionable; some allegations too vague or not "of and concerning" Sadeh | Partially granted/partially denied: allegations tied to paragraphs 72, 74, 75 insufficient; other statements (e.g., ¶¶70,106) plausibly defamatory and survive 12(b)(6) |
| False light invasion of privacy | Sadeh: Letter placed her in a false light and mischaracterized her role/treatment of the adolescent | Paradigm: argued dismissal (besides absolute privilege) claiming false-light requires private-matter publication | Denied as to claim: FAC plausibly alleges major misrepresentations sufficient for false light under Restatement §652E and Arizona law |
| Absolute litigation/litigation privilege | Paradigm: statements protected by absolute litigation privilege (or similar immunity) because related to court proceedings | Sadeh: facts do not establish the occasion for privilege; timing/mode of statements may fall outside privilege/judicial immunity | Denied on motion: privilege not resolvable on the face of the pleadings; factual record required to determine applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes public common-law right of access to judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling-reasons standard to seal judicial records)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (distinguishes protected opinion from actionable statements implying false facts)
- Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989) (Arizona defamation and false-light principles; adoption of Restatement §652E)
- Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1995) (test for whether a statement implies an objective fact)
- Green Acres Trust v. London, 141 Ariz. 609, 688 P.2d 617 (Ariz. 1984) (scope of absolute litigation privilege in Arizona)