Watson v. NY Doe 1

Background

Ralph Watson brought a diversity action under New York law against anonymous defendants for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy. Watson alleged that statements accusing him of workplace sexual misconduct were posted through Diet Madison Avenue accounts and communicated to Crispin, Porter & Bogusky’s human-resources department. He alleged that the accusations led to his termination on February 2, 2018.

Four defendants—Illinois Doe 1, NY Doe 2, Doe 1, and NY Doe 3—moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On such a motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a legal claim, without deciding disputed facts.

Defamation claims

The court held that Illinois Doe 1 could potentially be liable for republication of defamatory statements. Under New York law, repeating another person’s defamatory statement does not automatically avoid liability. The court found that Illinois Doe 1’s February 2, 2018 Facebook comments—stating that “9 women reported” Watson and displaying the “nine particular women” post—could reasonably imply that Watson sexually assaulted women and that Illinois Doe 1 endorsed that implication. The court also found potentially defamatory her May 25, 2018 comment connecting donations to the legal-defense fund with giving money to Watson’s “victims.”

The motion to dismiss Illinois Doe 1’s defamation claims based on those February 2 and May 25 statements was denied. Her motion concerning other alleged statements was granted without prejudice because the complaint did not specifically allege her personal involvement in those statements.

As to NY Doe 2, the court found that Watson adequately alleged two potentially defamatory accusations of rape: one made to CP+B’s human-resources department and one allegedly published on Instagram on May 24, 2018. The court did not decide whether Watson was a limited-purpose public figure, whether NY Doe 2 had a qualified privilege to make the statements, or whether the statements concerned a public controversy. Instead, it held that Watson’s allegations that NY Doe 2 knowingly made false accusations, allegedly in retaliation for his earlier complaints about her, were sufficient at the pleading stage under the potentially applicable fault standards.

The motion to dismiss NY Doe 2’s defamation claims concerning the human-resources complaint and the May 24 Instagram statement was denied. Her motion concerning the other alleged statements was granted without prejudice because the complaint did not specifically allege her personal involvement in them.

The court granted without prejudice Doe 1’s motion to dismiss the defamation claim because the complaint alleged that Doe 1 assisted Diet Madison Avenue but did not allege that Doe 1 actually made the challenged statements. The court also granted without prejudice NY Doe 3’s motion to dismiss the defamation claim because the complaint alleged that NY Doe 3 helped form the group and compiled a list, but did not allege that NY Doe 3 made the challenged statements. The court did not reach NY Doe 3’s argument under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Other tort claims

The court dismissed with prejudice the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against all defendants because they duplicated the defamation claims.

The court granted without prejudice Doe 1’s and NY Doe 3’s motions to dismiss the tortious-interference-with-contract claims because the complaint did not allege that either defendant intentionally caused CP+B to breach Watson’s contract. It also granted without prejudice Illinois Doe 1’s motion on that claim because her alleged statements occurred after Watson’s termination and therefore could not have caused the earlier breach.

The court denied NY Doe 2’s motion to dismiss the tortious-interference-with-contract claim. It found that Watson adequately alleged that NY Doe 2 knew about his contract with CP+B and made the statement to human resources intending to bring about his termination.

The court granted without prejudice all defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage because Watson did not adequately allege that any defendant directed conduct at a prospective third-party business relationship. The court granted with prejudice all defendants’ motions to dismiss the negligent-interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage claims because New York does not recognize that cause of action.

Civil-conspiracy claims

The court explained that New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as an independent tort, but a plaintiff may plead a conspiracy to show that defendants jointly participated in an underlying tort. The court found that Watson adequately alleged only certain possible underlying torts: two defamation acts by Illinois Doe 1, two defamation acts by NY Doe 2, and one contract-interference act by NY Doe 2.

The court nevertheless dismissed the conspiracy claims without prejudice. The complaint did not specifically allege an agreement, substantial encouragement, prior knowledge, or an overt act by the other defendants concerning the particular statements by Illinois Doe 1 or NY Doe 2. Mere membership in or assistance to Diet Madison Avenue was not enough to plausibly establish an agreement to make specific statements.

Discovery and disposition

The court rejected Watson’s request for additional discovery to identify publishers of some statements, stating that the allegations—particularly those concerning NY Doe 3 and Doe 1—were too conclusory to open discovery for a fishing expedition. The court stated that any further discovery should be addressed to the California court overseeing related discovery.

The motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part as described above. The court stated that Watson could seek permission to file another amended complaint by motion and explain how it would cure the identified defects. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the opinion and order.