Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc.

Background

Netflix released the four-part series When They See Us in 2019. The series dramatized the prosecution of five teenagers in connection with the rape of Patricia Meili in New York City’s Central Park. Linda Fairstein alleged that the series portrayed her as the person who drove a racially biased and unethical prosecution, including by creating a false timeline, directing police to arrest young Black males, encouraging coerced confessions, pressuring prosecutors, and concealing exculpatory DNA evidence.

Fairstein sued Netflix, Ava DuVernay, and Attica Locke for defamation and conspiracy to defame. She alleged that the series and the defendants’ public statements damaged her reputation and career. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismiss for improper venue, or transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. Netflix joined the venue arguments but did not challenge personal jurisdiction. The opinion also notes that Netflix separately moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but the order does not rule on that motion.

Venue and transfer analysis

The court explained that it could address venue before personal jurisdiction when there was a sound practical reason to do so. It did not decide whether venue was technically proper in the Middle District of Florida under the federal venue statute. Instead, it considered whether transfer was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another proper federal court when the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favor transfer.

The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was a proper destination for the case. It found that the events depicted in the series occurred primarily in New York, Fairstein’s former prosecutorial work and the underlying trials occurred there, most potential witnesses lived there, and most of the alleged reputational and economic harm focused on New York. The court also concluded that New York would likely have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, including Locke, who did not contest personal jurisdiction in New York.

The court found that the convenience of witnesses strongly favored transfer because most relevant former prosecutors, police officers, and witnesses concerning damages were in New York, and many had not indicated that they would travel to Florida. The location of documents, convenience of the parties, relative financial resources, and familiarity with governing law were treated as neutral. The location of the operative facts, the ability to subpoena unwilling witnesses, trial efficiency, and the interests of justice favored New York. The court gave Fairstein’s choice of Florida less weight because the operative facts primarily concerned New York.

Disposition

Judge Badalamenti’s order states that Ava DuVernay and Attica Locke’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or their joint motion with Netflix to dismiss for improper venue or transfer, was granted in part. The clerk was directed to transfer the matter to the Southern District of New York and close the Middle District of Florida case. The court did not decide the personal-jurisdiction issue, whether Florida venue was technically proper, or the merits of Fairstein’s defamation and conspiracy claims.