Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia

Background

Alex Goldfarb brought claims for libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Channel One Russia, alleging that four television programs broadcast in March and April 2018 falsely implicated him in the 2006 murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. The complaint alleged statements that Goldfarb murdered Litvinenko, murdered his wife to conceal the poisoning, worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, operated an unlawful business assisting Russian criminal asylum-seekers, and persuaded Litvinenko’s wife to commit perjury. Goldfarb alleged that Channel One knew the statements were false, including because he had given Channel One information contradicting them during an unaired interview at Channel One’s Manhattan studio.

Goldfarb also sued RT America a/k/a ANO TV-Novosti, but he voluntarily dismissed his claims against that defendant on September 1, 2020. The opinion therefore primarily addressed Channel One.

Earlier Ruling

Channel One previously moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over a defendant—and on forum non conveniens grounds, which ask whether another available forum is substantially more appropriate. On March 4, 2020, Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied that motion in its entirety.

Judge Caproni concluded that New York’s long-arm statute permitted personal jurisdiction over Channel One. She relied on Channel One’s New York studio, camera crew, and New York correspondent; its alleged distribution of programming in New York through its subsidiary and agent, Channel One Russia Worldwide; and, most significantly, the March 23, 2018 interview of Goldfarb at the New York studio. She found a substantial relationship between that interview and Goldfarb’s claims because the interview was part of Channel One’s research for the programs and could support his allegation that Channel One knew its statements were false. She also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due-process requirements.

Judge Caproni also denied dismissal based on forum non conveniens. She gave weight to Goldfarb’s choice of the Southern District of New York, found Russia was not an adequate alternative forum in light of Goldfarb’s stated fear of returning there and supporting evidence, and concluded that the public and private interests did not require the case to proceed in Russia.

Motion for Reconsideration

After jurisdictional discovery, Channel One renewed its request for reconsideration. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration of an interlocutory order is an extraordinary remedy. The moving party generally must identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Reconsideration may not be used simply to repeat arguments already rejected.

Judge Cronan held that Channel One did not meet that standard. As to personal jurisdiction, Channel One argued that the conduct of Channel One Russia Worldwide could not be attributed to it without proof of control, that the law had been misapplied, and that relying on the unaired interview was improper. Judge Cronan concluded that these arguments had already been made and rejected. He also found that Channel One had not identified new discovery, controlling authority, or other facts that would alter the earlier decision. The earlier ruling had primarily relied on Channel One’s own New York activities, especially the interview at its New York studio, rather than only on the subsidiary’s conduct.

Judge Cronan likewise denied reconsideration of the forum non conveniens ruling. He rejected Channel One’s arguments that the earlier analysis depended on an incorrect personal-jurisdiction ruling, that Goldfarb needed to show past harm or threats in Russia, and that the court had to accept the assertion that Goldfarb could litigate in Russia without being physically present. The court concluded that Channel One had not shown that Judge Caproni overlooked controlling law or relevant facts.

Request for Early Appeal

Channel One alternatively sought certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). That procedure allows a district court to certify an appeal before final judgment when the order presents a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about the answer, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the case.

Judge Cronan denied certification. He concluded that Channel One’s proposed appeal primarily challenged how settled legal standards were applied to the facts, including the evidence about New York activities and the adequacy of Russia as a forum. Those disputes were not the kind of pure legal questions appropriate for an early appeal, and Channel One had not shown a substantial disagreement about the governing law. Although an appeal could potentially end the litigation in this court, that factor did not outweigh the other deficiencies.

Disposition

The court denied Channel One’s renewed motion for reconsideration and denied Channel One’s request to certify the March 4, 2020 Order for an interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b). The clerk was directed to close the pending motion. Channel One was ordered to file an answer to the complaint within fourteen days, and the court stated that it would schedule an initial pretrial conference by separate order.