Atas v. The New York Times Company

Background

Nadire Atas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The New York Times Company, The Daily Podcast, Ellen Pollock, Kashmir Hill, Aaron Krolik, Michael Barbaro, unidentified defendants, unidentified corporations, and Lily Meier. She alleged defamation based on articles, podcast episodes, interviews, and social-media republication. The reporting described Atas as having conducted internet-based harassment campaigns against perceived enemies and discussed Canadian civil and criminal proceedings involving her.

The Times Defendants and Meier moved to dismiss Atas’s Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The opinion also addressed claims Atas purported to bring against Dr. Todd Essig, who had not yet been served.

Claims Against The Times Defendants

The court held that Atas had not plausibly alleged that the statements were false. Under the substantial-truth standard, a statement is sufficiently true when the alleged truth would not produce a different effect on a reader than the published statement. The court relied on a Canadian judgment and applied collateral estoppel, a rule that prevents relitigating an issue already fully and fairly decided in an earlier case. The court concluded that the Canadian judgment resolved issues concerning Atas’s responsibility for internet-based harassment, her status as a vexatious litigant, and her reported mental illness.

The court also held that the reporting about the Canadian proceedings was protected by New York’s fair-report privilege. That privilege protects a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding. The court concluded that an ordinary reader would understand the challenged reporting to be based on Canadian civil and criminal court proceedings, including the Canadian judgment and Atas’s arrest.

As an additional independent basis for dismissal, the court applied New York’s anti-strategic-lawsuit-against-public-participation law. Because the reporting concerned matters of public interest, Atas had to plausibly allege actual malice—meaning that the defendants knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were false. The court found that Atas’s allegations did not support that inference.

Atas also asserted negligent supervision, negligent retention, and respondeat superior claims against The New York Times Company. The court held that those claims failed because Atas had not plausibly alleged that a Times employee committed a tort.

Claims Against Lily Meier and Dr. Essig

The court granted Meier’s motion to dismiss. It found that Meier was not a Times employee and that the complaint’s only apparent allegation concerning her—that Atas was arrested for allegedly harassing her through internet posts—did not state a defamation claim or another actionable legal claim.

The court dismissed Atas’s claims against Dr. Essig because she had not plausibly alleged that his statements were false or that he acted with actual malice. The court noted that Essig’s comments were made in connection with speech about an issue of public interest, so the actual-malice standard applied.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Atas requested permission to amend her complaint again. The court denied that request, explaining that she had already amended her complaint three times and that another amendment would be futile.

Judge Oetken’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted and that Atas’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the motions and the case. The court did not issue an anti-filing injunction, but stated that it would consider a motion seeking such an injunction if Atas used future federal proceedings for harassment.