Here, the Series Is

Here, the Series Is

Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 43 PageID 283 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION LINDA FAIRSTEIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 20-cv-00180 v. ) ) NETFLIX, INC., AVA DUVERNAY, and ) ATTICA LOCKE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT NETFLIX INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AND JOINDER IN MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DUVERNAY AND LOCKE TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE OR TO TRANSFER VENUE Kelley Geraghty Price (Florida Bar #889539) Natalie J. Spears (pro hac vice) Eric S. Olson (Florida Bar #99079) Gregory R. Naron (pro hac vice) DENTONS COHEN & GRIGSBY P.C. Jacqueline A. Giannini (pro hac vice) Mercato - Suite 6200 DENTONS US LLP 9110 Strada Place 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Naples, Florida 34108 DeadlineChicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (239) 390-1913 Phone: (312) 876-8000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Kiran Patel (pro hac vice pending) DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Trial Counsel for Defendant Netflix, Inc. Phone: (212) 768-6700 [email protected] Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 43 PageID 284 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12 I. Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 12 II. Choice of Law .................................................................................................................. 13 III. The Dramatized, Opinionative Speech At Issue Is Protected by the First Amendment ...................................................................................................................... 13 IV. Powerful, Hyperbolic Language in the Dramatized Dialogue of Which Plaintiff Complains Cannot Be the Basis for Liability and Is Substantially True in Any Event ................................................................................................................................ 18 V. None of the Specific Scenes and Dialogue Plaintiff Identifies In the Complaint Are Actionable Defamation ............................................................................................. 21 A. Scenes Showing Plaintiff “At the Crime Scene” (Scene 1), “Drafting a Press Release” (Scene 2), and “Fighting With Nancy Ryan Over Who Would Prosecute Case” (Scene 5) Have No Plausible Defamatory Meaning ............................................................................................................... 23 B. It Is Not Defamatory to Portray Plaintiff As Expressing Views She Has Publicly Espoused for Decades ............................................................................ 24 1. “Putting Together a Timeline” (Scene 4) ................................................. 25 2. Interactions With ADA Lederer (Scenes 8 and 10) ................................. 26 3. Interactions With ADA Ryan (Scenes 5 and 11) ..................................... 28 C. The ComplainedDeadline-of Dialogue Does Not Support Plaintiff’s Claimed Defamatory Imputation That She “Violated the Law” ........................................ 29 1. No Claim Based On Purported Questioning of “Unaccompanied Minors” (Scene 3) .................................................................................... 30 2. No Claim Based on Purported “Directing” of Detectives (Scenes 7, 8) .......................................................................................................... 32 3. No Claim Based on Discussion of DNA Evidence (Scene 9) ................. 33 VI. The Purported Conspiracy Claim Does Not Exist Under Applicable Law ..................... 35 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 35 REQUEST FOR HEARING ……………………………………………………………………35 i Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 43 PageID 285 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES* Page(s) Cases Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y. 2d 592 (1985) .............................................................................................................22 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................12 Bordoni v. N.Y. Times Co., 400 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)...................................................................................31, 34 Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 116 F. 3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................5 Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 44 Cal.App.4th 572 (1996) ................................................................................................19, 22 Carlisle v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 201 Cal.App.2d 733 (1962) .....................................................................................................22 Carlson v. Am. Int’l Inc., 30 N.Y.3d 288 (2017) ..............................................................................................................35 Carto v. Buckley, 649 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ..........................................................................................21 Carver v. Bonds, 135 Cal.App.4th 328 (2005) ………………………………………………………………...20 Cerasani v. Sony Corp., 991 F. Supp. 343 (S.D.N.Y.Deadline 1998) ..............................................................................12, 18, 33 Chao v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 476 F. App’x 892 (2d Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................35 Chau v. Lewis, 771 F. 3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014)..................................................................................15, 17, 22, 32 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) .................................................................................................................31 Cole Fischer Rogow, Inc. v. Carl Ally, Inc., 29 A.D. 2d 423 (1st Dept 1968) .........................................................................................22, 23 *Citations in the Table of Authorities are hyperlinked to Westlaw. ii Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 43 PageID 286 De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal.App.5th 845 (2018) ..........................................................................................15, 17, 22 Degirmenci v. Sapphire–Ft. Lauderdale, 693 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ....................................................................................12 Deripaska v. AP, 282 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D.D.C. 2017) .........................................................................................13 Dobies v. Brefka, 263 A.D.2d 721 (3d Dep’t 1999) .............................................................................................35 Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 WL 1816180 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010) ................................................................................21 El Meson Espanol v. NYM Corp., 521 F. 2d 737 (2d Cir. 1975)....................................................................................................33 Ent’mnt Rsch. Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................35 Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394 (1999) ..............................................................................................29, 30 Goldman v. Barrett, 733 F. App’x 568 (2d Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................35 Idema v. Wager, 120 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ……………………………………………………….. 20 Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y. 2d 235 (1991) .............................................................................................................29 Issa v. Applegate, 31 Cal.App.5th 689 (2019)Deadline ......................................................................................................22 Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (2017) ....................................................................................................23 John E. Reid & Assocs., Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 2020 WL 1330657 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2020) ................................................................... passim Kimmerle v. N.Y. Evening Jour., 262 N.Y. 99, 186 N.E. 217 (1933) ...........................................................................................23 Lott v. Levitt, 556 F. 3d 564 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................12 iii Case 2:20-cv-00180-TPB-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 43 PageID 287 Love v. Wm. Morrow & Co., 193 A.D.2d 586 (2d Dep’t 1993) .............................................................................................18 Lovingood v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 800 F. App’x 840 (11th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. passim Masson v. New Yorker Magazine,

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    47 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us