Watson v. NY Doe 1

Background

Ralph M. Watson brought a diversity action asserting New York defamation and other tort claims against Illinois Doe 1, NY Doe 2, and other Doe defendants. The claims arose from alleged statements implicating Watson in workplace sexual misconduct. Watson alleged that the statements were false, harmed his reputation, and contributed to his termination from Crispin Porter + Bogusky.

The court stated that, in 2020, it dismissed most claims against Illinois Doe 1 and NY Doe 2 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), leaving a defamation claim against Illinois Doe 1 and defamation and tortious-interference-with-contract claims against NY Doe 2.

In 2021, Illinois Doe 1 and NY Doe 2 amended their answers to assert counterclaims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a et seq., New York’s anti-SLAPP law. Anti-SLAPP laws address lawsuits allegedly brought to punish or harass people for participating in public life. Watson filed separate motions to dismiss each counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Legal standard

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts the counterclaim’s factual allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the counterclaimant, and decides only whether the pleading states a legally sufficient and plausible claim. The court does not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes.

The court held that the federal Rule 12(b)(6) standard, rather than New York’s higher anti-SLAPP “substantial basis” pleading standard, governed the motions. The court reasoned that the state and federal standards conflict and that the federal rule controls in federal court. The court also explained that it generally could not consider evidence outside the pleadings unless the material was attached to, incorporated into, or integral to the counterclaim.

Illinois Doe 1’s counterclaim

Illinois Doe 1 alleged that she republished a post stating that nine women had reported Watson and later posted an Instagram message linking to a legal-defense fundraising page for Diet Madison Avenue. She alleged that these statements and similar posts on Girlsday, a platform she founded and moderated, addressed workplace discrimination, harassment, and assault in the advertising industry.

The court concluded that these allegations plausibly showed publicly made statements involving an issue of public interest. The statements appeared on Facebook and Instagram and concerned the #MeToo movement, workplace abuse, and gender and power dynamics in the advertising industry. The court also concluded that Illinois Doe 1 plausibly alleged that Watson’s claims lacked a substantial basis in fact and law, including because she alleged that Watson lacked a substantial basis for believing the statements about reported women and victims were false.

The court rejected Watson’s request to resolve whether Illinois Doe 1 acted with actual malice, meaning knowledge that a statement was false or serious doubt about its truth. The court said that issue involved factual disputes that could not be decided on a motion to dismiss. It also declined to consider Watson’s counsel’s declaration and attached exhibits because they were outside the counterclaim and were not incorporated into it or integral to it.

NY Doe 2’s counterclaim

NY Doe 2 alleged that Watson sexually harassed and assaulted her, that she reported the conduct, and that Watson was disciplined after a human-resources investigation. She also alleged that she contacted Diet Madison Avenue to share her experiences and prevent Watson from harming other women. Her counterclaim identified a message stating that she did not care if the industry knew he had raped her.

The court held that these allegations plausibly showed a publicly made statement involving an issue of public interest. Although the message was sent directly to the Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account rather than posted in an open forum, the court said a communication may still qualify when it contributes to a broader public discussion. The court concluded that the allegations concerned workplace sexual abuse, the #MeToo movement, and the relationship between senior executives and subordinate employees.

The court also held that NY Doe 2 plausibly alleged that Watson’s lawsuit lacked a substantial basis in fact and law. Her detailed allegations included the alleged assault and harassment, the human-resources investigation and discipline, and Watson’s termination after a later investigation. The court said it could not decide whether Watson’s denials or NY Doe 2’s account were true because that would require credibility determinations.

Disposition

The court denied Watson’s motions to dismiss both counterclaims. It also declined to convert the motions into motions for summary judgment under Rule 56. The court stated that Watson could seek summary judgment later, but would first need the appropriate pre-motion conference and would have to comply with the requirements for such a motion, including filing a Rule 56.1 statement.