439 F.Supp.3d 152
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Watson was CP+B’s Chief Creative Officer; DMA (Diet Madison Avenue) ran social accounts alleging serial sexual misconduct in advertising and published statements about industry figures.
- DMA posted an Instagram Story on Jan. 19, 2018 naming Watson; subsequent DMA posts on Jan. 25 and later celebrated his February 2, 2018 termination by CP+B.
- NY Doe 2 allegedly complained to CP+B HR that Watson sexually assaulted her (prior to termination) and later posted on DMA’s Instagram that he raped her; Illinois Doe 1 reposted DMA materials and shared a GoFundMe with a comment referring to Watson’s “victims.”
- Plaintiff sued for defamation, IIED, tortious interference (contract and prospective economic advantage), negligent interference, and civil conspiracy; four Doe defendants moved to dismiss.
- Court accepted complaint allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) and evaluated whether statements were actionable and whether requisite fault or other elements were alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation liability for Illinois Doe 1 (Feb. 2 Facebook comments; May 25 GoFundMe comment) | Illinois Doe 1 republished DMA statements but endorsed them; statements conveyed that Watson had victims and sexually assaulted women | Illinois Doe 1 argued she only republished others and relied on single-publication ideas | Denied: republication does not immunize liability; the Facebook and GoFundMe comments are potentially defamatory and plausibly conveyed endorsement/inference of assault |
| Defamation liability for NY Doe 2 (HR complaint; May 24 Instagram) | Watson alleges NY Doe 2 knowingly made false accusations (actual knowledge) and acted in retaliation, satisfying actual/constitutional malice and common-law malice | NY Doe 2 argued plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, claimed qualified privilege/common-interest, or public controversy standard requiring higher fault | Denied: pleadings sufficiently allege NY Doe 2 acted with actual/constitutional malice, common-law malice, and gross irresponsibility; defamation claims against NY Doe 2 survive |
| Defamation liability for Doe 1 and NY Doe 3 (alleged behind‑the‑scenes assistance) | Plaintiff alleges Doe 1 connected DMA to researchers and NY Doe 3 compiled list and helped form DMA | Doe 1 and NY Doe 3 argued no specific allegations they published or personally made the defamatory statements | Granted (without prejudice): no plausible direct liability alleged for the contested statements |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) | Same facts as defamation support IIED | IIED is duplicative of defamation claims | Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative |
| Tortious Interference with Contract | NY Doe 2’s HR complaint induced CP+B breach; other defendants participated in a scheme | Some defendants argued their statements postdated the breach or lacked causation/knowledge of the contract | NY Doe 2: claim survives; Illinois Doe 1, Doe 1, NY Doe 3: dismissed without prejudice (Illinois Doe 1’s republishing postdated termination) |
| Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage | Plaintiff alleges interference with future relationships due to defamatory campaign | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to plead directed conduct toward specific prospective contracting third parties | Dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded |
| Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage | Plaintiff asserted negligent interference theory | Defendants noted no such cause exists under NY law | Dismissed with prejudice (no cause of action in NY) |
| Civil Conspiracy | Plaintiff alleges members of DMA conspired to publish defamatory statements causing harm | Defendants argued no specific agreement, overt acts, or substantial encouragement tied to the specific defamatory publications | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead agreement/overt acts as to the actionable torts |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.) (motion to dismiss standards)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Cianci v. New Times Publ’g Co., 639 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.) (republication can give rise to liability)
- Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir.) (actual malice assessment fact-dependent)
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344 (N.Y.) (public-figure actual malice requirement)
- Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 341 N.E.2d 569 (N.Y.) (grossly irresponsible standard for public controversy)
- Kirch v. Liberty Media Grp., 449 F.3d 388 (2d Cir.) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 234 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (overlap of actual malice and gross irresponsibility)