551 F.Supp.3d 320
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden) used false identities and hidden cameras at abortion-industry conferences and released edited videos as part of a "Human Capital Project."
- PPFA sued in California (civil case), prevailed at trial, and obtained over $2 million in damages against Daleiden/CMP; Daleiden also faced related criminal charges in California.
- After adverse rulings, PPFA published two statements (a Rewire article quote and a Twitter post) describing Plaintiffs as having "manufactured/created a false smear campaign." Plaintiffs sued for defamation per se in SDNY.
- Plaintiffs admitted in the complaint that they used fake identities, doctored and selectively edited video, and sought to harm PPFA's reputation and operations.
- PPFA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court dismissed with prejudice, holding the statements were substantially true and protected by New York Civil Rights Law § 74 (fair and true reports of judicial proceedings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Falsity/substantial truth of challenged phrases | Plaintiffs: the videos were true and not "manufactured" or "false," so the phrases are provably false | PPFA: statements accurately conveyed that Plaintiffs used deceptive tactics and published misleading/edited videos; substantially true | Held: statements substantially true; plaintiffs failed to plead falsity, so defamation fails |
| Privilege under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 74 | Plaintiffs: statements exceeded fair report scope and thus are not protected | PPFA: statements were fair and true reports/comments on judicial proceedings (civil verdict and criminal proceedings) | Held: § 74 applies; statements privileged as fair and true reports of judicial proceedings |
| Opinion/nonactionable speech | Plaintiffs: phrasing conveyed factual accusation of fabricating evidence | PPFA: statements are nonactionable opinion/comment and contextual reporting | Held: court did not need to reach opinion issue after finding substantial truth and privilege |
| Entitlement to attorney's fees under N.Y. anti-SLAPP law | Plaintiffs: N/A in complaint | PPFA: action is a SLAPP and fees should be recoverable under amended Civil Rights Law | Held: court declined to award fees on motion to dismiss; noted procedural and timing issues and that defendant had not properly moved for fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must nudge claim across line from conceivable to plausible)
- Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (substantial truth doctrine defeats libel claim)
- Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2017) (plaintiff must plead facts showing statement not substantially true)
- Karedes v. Ackerley Grp., Inc., 423 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2005) (fair-report privilege requires substantial accuracy)
- Celle v. Filipino Rep. Enters., Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) (court decides whether words are defamatory)
- Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (defamation protects reputation; falsity is essential)
- Holy Spirit Ass'n, 49 N.Y.2d 63 (1980) (fair-report privilege and cautions against lexicographic dissection)