Webber v. Dash

Background

After a four-day jury trial, the jury found Damon Anthony Dash and Poppington LLC liable for copyright infringement and defamation. The jury awarded Muddy Water Pictures LLC $30,000 for infringement of its copyright in the film “The List,” later known as “Dear Frank.” It awarded Josh Webber $400,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages for defamation. It awarded Muddy $125,000 in punitive damages for defamation but no compensatory damages.

The defamation claims arose from social-media posts about who directed the film and who owned its copyright. Among other things, Dash called Webber a “culturevulture” and accused Webber and Muddy of falsely claiming credit for or ownership of the film. A February 5, 2019 Instagram post also accused Webber and Muddy of robbing a seven-year-old child in an unrelated film. The opinion states that Dash’s account had more than one million followers, the post had received more than 26,000 views when a screenshot was taken, Webber received comments including death threats, and Webber lost or failed to obtain film opportunities after the postings.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e) for remittitur of the punitive damages or, alternatively, a new trial limited to punitive damages. Remittitur is a procedure requiring a plaintiff to choose between accepting a reduced damages award and having a new trial. The defendants argued that the punitive-damages questions on the verdict form were defective because they did not expressly require the jury to find malicious or reckless conduct. They also argued that the punitive-damages awards were excessive.

Waiver and the Verdict Form

The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the verdict form. The court had reviewed the form with the parties and repeatedly asked whether they had objections. The defendants did not object before the jury began deliberating, as required for an objection to a jury instruction or verdict form.

The court also ruled that the verdict form was not erroneous. The form asked the jury what amount, if any, each plaintiff should receive as punitive damages. Although the form did not repeat the requirement that the conduct be malicious or reckless, the jury had been instructed both at the beginning and end of trial that it could award punitive damages only if the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s defamatory conduct was malicious or reckless. Reading the form together with the instructions, the court found no inconsistency or fundamental error.

Webber’s Punitive Damages

The court upheld Webber’s $250,000 punitive-damages award. It found substantial evidence that Dash and Poppington acted intentionally, maliciously, and with knowledge that their statements were false. The court emphasized the accusation that Webber had robbed a seven-year-old child even though the child’s video did not refer to Webber or Muddy and neither plaintiff was affiliated with the unrelated film. The court also considered that the defendants continued posting after Webber told Dash that he was receiving death threats.

The court found that the award was not excessive under the factors used to evaluate punitive damages. Webber’s punitive award was 60 percent of his $400,000 compensatory award. The court also noted that comparable defamation cases had upheld larger punitive awards and that the conduct was prolonged and reached a large audience. The motion was therefore denied as to Webber’s punitive damages.

Muddy’s Punitive Damages

The court found Muddy’s $125,000 punitive-damages award excessive. Although the defendants’ conduct toward Muddy was generally serious, the court viewed the February 5 post as somewhat less reprehensible toward Muddy because it used the phrase “I suspect” when referring to Muddy, suggesting less certainty than the statement about Webber.

The principal problem was that the jury awarded Muddy no compensatory damages. The court stated that Muddy had not presented evidence of harm caused by the Instagram posts. A $125,000 punitive award alongside zero compensatory damages created an exceptionally high relationship between the two awards, and the court found no comparable defamation cases supporting such an award in these circumstances. The court concluded that the award was not reasonable or proportionate.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion in part. Muddy must choose between accepting remittitur reducing its punitive-damages award from $125,000 to $25,000 or having a new trial on punitive damages. The court denied the motion in all other respects, including the request concerning Webber’s punitive damages and the challenge to the verdict form. Muddy was directed to inform the court of its choice within 10 days after entry of the decision and order.