The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences v. Multimedia System Design
The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. v. Multimedia System Design, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-07269
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In National Academy v. Multimedia System Design, Judge Caproni denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ proposed injunction, allowing one final chance to justify narrower removal terms.
The plaintiffs’ request for a defamation-related injunction was denied without prejudice; the defendant was not required by this order to remove the challenged content, and the plaintiffs could submit a revised proposal.
What happened
The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. v. Multimedia System Design, Inc. involved the plaintiffs’ request for default judgment after the defendant failed to retain counsel or respond. The plaintiffs proposed requiring the defendant to remove certain Twitter posts and YouTube videos that allegedly made false statements about the plaintiffs and Adam Sharp.
The court explained that injunctions against defamatory speech generally require extraordinary circumstances. It found the plaintiffs had not shown harm or sought damages, and viewed the alleged social-media campaign as brief and limited. The court also found that the proposed order did not identify the challenged tweets precisely enough, and that the request to remove an entire YouTube video was too broad.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the proposed injunction without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs one final chance to submit a better-supported proposal by February 25, 2022. The court said it was otherwise prepared to sign the proposed order concerning the plaintiffs’ Lanham Act and Copyright Act claims.
The detailed version
- The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences v. Multimedia System Design · No. 1:20-cv-07269
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
The court had previously ordered the plaintiffs to move for default judgment against Multimedia System Design, Inc., doing business as “Crowdsource the Truth.” The plaintiffs filed that motion and proposed an order requiring the defendant to remove Twitter posts and YouTube videos identified in the amended complaint as containing false accusations and claims about the plaintiffs and Adam Sharp. The plaintiffs later narrowed the proposed language by removing a reference to any other online or social-media statements.
The defendant did not retain counsel by the court’s deadline and did not respond to the proposed default judgment order. The court noted that the Lanham Act and Copyright Act authorize injunctive relief for continuing trademark and copyright violations, and that courts may issue permanent injunctions in appropriate default-judgment proceedings.
Defamation-Injunction Request
The challenged portion of the proposed order concerned allegedly defamatory statements. The court explained that, in the Second Circuit, injunctions against defamation generally should not issue absent extraordinary circumstances because damages ordinarily provide an adequate remedy. Intimidation or coercion can sometimes qualify as extraordinary circumstances, although First Amendment principles may still limit an injunction.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had conducted a social-media “smear campaign” intended to intimidate them and pressure them to retract a takedown notice. They pointed to at least 11 Twitter posts or replies during one week and YouTube videos that allegedly made accusations about Mr. Sharp and his father, Roger Sharp.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the evidence did not appear to establish extraordinary circumstances sufficient to support the proposed relief. The plaintiffs had not presented evidence of harm caused by the statements and had not sought damages. The court also characterized the alleged campaign as a short-lived effort lasting approximately one week and occurring only on YouTube and Twitter. It expressed skepticism that extraordinary circumstances existed even if the plaintiffs were correct about the defendant’s motives.
The court further found that the proposed injunction was not adequately specific. The plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendant had tweeted at or replied to Mr. Sharp at least 11 times, together with paraphrased descriptions in the amended complaint, did not allow the court to determine that every identified tweet was false and defamatory as to the plaintiffs. The amended complaint also did not identify the specific tweets by date and time. The court noted that an injunction must clearly tell the defendant what conduct is prohibited.
As to the YouTube video, the court found the request overbroad because it would require removal of the entire video even though the plaintiffs complained about only a four-minute segment. The plaintiffs also had not provided enough information about the statements in that segment for the court to evaluate whether they defamed either plaintiff. The court reminded the plaintiffs that Adam Sharp was not a plaintiff in the action.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ proposed injunction without prejudice to presenting a better-crafted and better-justified proposed order. If the plaintiffs wished to continue seeking an affirmative order requiring removal of the challenged posts and video content, the court gave them one final chance to identify the allegedly defamatory statements, specify where they appeared, and explain how they defamed one or both plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a revised proposed default judgment order by February 25, 2022, either removing the defamation-related language or adequately supporting it. Apart from that portion, the court stated that it was prepared to sign the proposed order concerning the plaintiffs’ Lanham Act and Copyright Act claims. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to serve the order on the defendant by mail and record service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.