Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia

Background

Alex Goldfarb sued Channel One Russia and RT America, also identified as Ano TV-Novosti, over broadcasts concerning the 2006 poisoning and death of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. Goldfarb alleged that the defendants broadcast statements accusing him of murdering Litvinenko, murdering his own wife, and being an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. He asserted claims for libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The opinion states that Channel One broadcast several programs in March and April 2018, and RT America broadcast an interview on April 1, 2018. Goldfarb alleged that Channel One interviewed him at its New York studio but did not broadcast his denials or rebuttal. He also alleged that the defendants distributed the programs in New York. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions.

Forum Non Conveniens

Channel One moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine that allows a court to dismiss a case when another forum is more appropriate even though the court has jurisdiction. RT America joined that motion.

The court declined to dismiss the case on this ground. It gave weight to Goldfarb’s choice of a United States forum because Channel One operated a New York studio, interviewed Goldfarb there, and distributed programming in the district. The court also found Russia was not an adequate alternative forum. It credited Goldfarb’s stated fear that returning to Russia could result in imprisonment or physical harm, and considered supporting information from Yuri Shvets, whom the opinion describes as a former KGB agent who received political asylum in the United States.

The court further concluded that the private and public factors did not strongly favor Russia. The alleged reputational harm primarily occurred in the United States, relevant witnesses were located in the United States or London, and the defendants had not shown that litigating in New York would impose an excessive burden. The forum non conveniens motion was denied.

Channel One’s Personal Jurisdiction

Channel One moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning it argued that the court lacked legal authority over it. The court applied New York’s long-arm statute and the constitutional requirement that the defendant have sufficient connections with New York.

The court found that Goldfarb adequately alleged specific personal jurisdiction under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 302(a)(1). In a defamation case, merely distributing an allegedly defamatory statement in New York is not enough; the defendant must have engaged in additional New York activity connected to creating the statement. The court found that requirement satisfied because Channel One maintained a New York studio and correspondent, distributed programming to New York subscribers, and interviewed Goldfarb at the New York studio as part of its preparation for the programs at issue.

The court found a substantial relationship between that New York conduct and Goldfarb’s claims. The interview was relevant to whether Channel One knew that the broadcast statements were allegedly false. The court also found that Channel One purposefully conducted business in New York and that exercising jurisdiction over it was consistent with due process. Channel One’s motion to dismiss was denied.

RT America’s Personal Jurisdiction and Failure-to-State-a-Claim Motion

RT America moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, meaning it argued that the complaint did not adequately allege a legally valid claim. Goldfarb pointed to RT’s alleged distribution contracts with New York cable and satellite operators and hotels, and alleged on information and belief that RT had a New York studio and correspondent.

The court found that Goldfarb had made a barely sufficient start toward showing personal jurisdiction but had not yet specifically alleged that RT America used its New York studio or correspondent to create or research the allegedly defamatory broadcasts. The court therefore permitted jurisdictional discovery to determine whether RT America engaged in New York conduct beyond merely sending allegedly defamatory statements into the state.

The court denied RT America’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice to renewal after jurisdictional discovery. It stayed RT America’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court stated that it would address that motion after resolving personal jurisdiction, unless RT America chose not to renew its jurisdictional challenge.

Disposition

The court declined to dismiss the case for forum non conveniens. It found that Goldfarb adequately alleged personal jurisdiction over Channel One and denied Channel One’s motion to dismiss. It denied RT America’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice, permitted jurisdictional discovery concerning RT America, and stayed RT America’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and jointly propose a schedule by March 31, 2020.