Devin Nunes' Family's Bizarrely Stupid Defamation Lawsuit Goes Off The Rails

from the wow dept

As you may recall, Rep. Devin Nunes has been involved in a bunch of totally frivolous SLAPP suits that seem designed to try to intimidate journalists from writing stories criticizing Devin Nunes. A key one that seems to have gotten deeply under Nunes' skin is an Esquire piece from a few years ago entitled Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret written by reporter Ryan Lizza. In the fall of 2019 he sued over that article, and a few months later his family sued over it as well.

To say it hasn't gone well for Nunes would be an understatement.

As a reminder, the article claims that the "politically explosive secret" is just the fact that, despite Nunes repeatedly pitching himself as a California farmer, his family packed up the farm and moved it to Iowa a while back. Much of the article is about how they appear to have worked over time to try to hide that:

So here’s the secret: The Nunes family dairy of political lore—the one where his brother and parents work—isn’t in California. It’s in Iowa. Devin; his brother, Anthony III; and his parents, Anthony Jr. and Toni Dian, sold their California farmland in 2006. Anthony Jr. and Toni Dian, who has also been the treasurer of every one of Devin’s campaigns since 2001, used their cash from the sale to buy a dairy eighteen hundred miles away in Sibley, a small town in northwest Iowa where they—as well as Anthony III, Devin’s only sibling, and his wife, Lori—have lived since 2007. Devin’s uncle Gerald still owns a dairy back in Tulare, which is presumably where The Wall Street Journal’s reporter talked to Devin, and Devin is an investor in a Napa Valley winery, Alpha Omega, but his immediate family’s farm—as well as his family—is long gone.

The article also discusses a bunch of other oddities about the Nunes' farm in Iowa, and while it never comes out and directly claims that the farm hires undocumented workers, it does note that most other farms in the area do. This point has become somewhat important in the case.

Devin Nunes' own part in the case is effectively over as the judge dismissed it last summer, pointing out absolutely nothing Nunes claimed was defamatory actually was defamatory (Nunes is appealing, because of course he is, but it's hard to see much of a chance of the case being reinstated). And while the judge had made it clear that the lawsuit by Nunes' family was on shaky ground, the Nunes' family and their lawyer, the infamous Steven Biss, decided to keep the case going.

The only claim that has survived in the case is the one where Nunes' family says it is defamatory due to the implication that the farm has employed undocumented workers. So, as would be expected, one of the things that Esquire's publisher, Hearst, wished to do was to depose the workers on the farm to establish their documentation. Last month, it became clear that something nutty was going on after Hearst filed quite a document with the court, about its efforts to depose the workers from NuStar farms. Much of the filing is redacted, but you can still get a sense of the frustration:

This Motion comes in the wake of an unusual and troubling series of events in this case, which were previewed for the Court during last week’s telephone conferences with Judge Roberts....

Reading through the details (and especially the declaration of one of Esquire's lawyers) strongly suggests (though the redactions make it a little tricky to parse out) that Biss has played games to try to keep NuStar's employees from giving depositions. This includes questions about whether or not Biss would accept service on behalf of those employees and also whether or not he would represent those employees.

Reading those links suggests the case was already turning into something of a clusterfuck, and apparently on Thursday it all blew up as the magistrate judge on the case benchslapped Biss and told him to stop playing games (first reported by the Fresno Bee, whose parent company was also sued by Nunes, and which has done some great reporting on these cases).

The order from the magistrate judge details what happened when Hearst's lawyers were finally able to depose the NuStar employees and... um... wow.

Defendants noticed the depositions of six of Plaintiffs’ current employees and had them served with subpoenas duces tecum that required them to bring identification to their depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven S. Biss, accepted service of the subpoenas on behalf of the employees, but Plaintiffs arranged for separate counsel, Justin Allen, to represent the deponents. F.S.D. was the first such witness to be deposed on May 12, 2021.

While Defendants’ counsel was questioning F.S.D. about his purported signature on various documents, Mr. Allen stated, “I’ve advised my client to invoke his Fifth Amendment right regarding questions about this document. [F.S.D.] --- ” (Doc. 103-8 at 20 (Dep. pp. 71-72).) Mr. Biss then interrupted stating, “Hold on. Hold on. Can we go off the record for just a minute? I’d like to talk to Justin before we do this.” (Id. (Dep. p. 72).) In fact, the deposition was delayed for much more than just a minute. More than two hours later, the deposition resumed. When Defendants’ counsel attempted to make record, Mr. Biss interrupted him several times insisting that Mr. Allen would make a statement and the deposition would be rescheduled. Once Mr. Biss got his way, Mr. Allen stated,

I am not going to allow [F.S.D.] to answer that question because when we left it I advised him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. We took a break. We went off the record, and we’ve had several conversations with lots of people and I’ve talked to [F.S.D.], and as of now I am no longer representing him. I am not his lawyer.

(Id. at 21 (Dep. pp. 74-75).) The depositions were then halted. At the hearing, Mr. Biss stated that a new lawyer had been retained to represent the employee witnesses at their depositions, but he could only identify the new attorney by her first name, Jennifer. Mr. Biss was ordered to provide her name to opposing counsel and the Court. To date, I have not received that information.

There are so many "wow" elements in there, and also plenty of things on the "these are things you should not do during a deposition" list. Just the fact that a judge would recount that in an order is kind of incredible, and suggests that the court is already both aware of and sick of Biss's antics.

The judge orders the employees from NuStar to actually comply with the subpoenas, and seems to suggest that Biss failed to inform the employees of their obligations under the subpoena until the morning of the deposition (another wow moment):

Although the subpoenas had been timely served and no objection was raised, apparently F.S.D. first learned of the deposition on the morning it was scheduled, he had not been shown the subpoena, and he did not appear with the requested documents.

So the court doesn't just order that the employees comply with the request to produce documents, but tells Biss to make sure that the employees are properly informed of them:

To avoid a repetition of this problem at upcoming depositions, Mr. Biss and any attorney retained for the employees will inform the employees of their obligation to search for the requested documents and bring the documents to the deposition, if they still possess them. Mr. Biss and any attorney retained for the employees will also advise the employees that the Court has ordered this production and employees may be asked about their efforts to comply at the deposition.

And then the magistrate judge addresses Biss's behavior. And you can tell he's not happy.

Defendants complain about Mr. Biss’s behavior during the deposition of F.S.D. Particularly, Defendants assert that Mr. Biss asserted argumentative objections that were disruptive and intended to intimidate or coach the witness. Mr. Biss asserts that his objections were proper and “intended to call out the Defendants’ overt harassment of the NuStar employee.” (Doc. 107 at 10.) Mr. Biss’s further explanation on this issue is puzzling and troubling:

No effort was made to “signal to the witness how to answer questions” or to “coach[] the witness to testify in a certain way.” Counsel for the Defendants got answers to all his questions, including those about [F.S.D.’s] traffic tickets. The deponent was never instructed not to answer. Indeed, he wanted to answer all questions. Plaintiff’s counsel sought a side bar with counsel for the witness to determine whether the witness wanted to take the Fifth Amendment. The witness did not, which is why the witness terminated the lawyer with absolutely no prompting by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

(Id. (brackets in original).) During the deposition, Defendants’ counsel was asking questions about documents such as a bond F.S.D. had posted and a traffic ticket he had received that bore his signature. Mr. Biss made a lengthy speaking objection claiming this was harassment. (Doc. 103-8 at 19 (Dep. pp. 66-67).) Here, where the identity and immigration status of the employees is a central issue, it is not harassing or irrelevant to ask questions about such documents. In the context of this case, it is not conducive to obtaining truthful answers from an employee such as F.S.D. to have his employer’s lawyer making lengthy, animated objections to those questions.

The most puzzling and troubling aspect of Mr. Biss’s explanation, however, is the representation that he “sought a sidebar with counsel for the witness to determine whether the witness wanted to take the Fifth Amendment.” (Doc. 107 at 10.) This two-hour “sidebar” occurred immediately after Mr. Allen stated, “I’ve advised my client to invoke his Fifth Amendment right regarding questions about this document.” (Doc. 103-8 at 20 (Dep. pp. 71-72).) Normally, one would expect the lawyer for a deponent to be in the best position to ascertain whether the deponent desires to assert a privilege. There is no record of the sidebar, only Mr. Biss’s protestations that the employees are not being pressured regarding their rights under the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Biss makes bald assurances that the employees want to answer all questions and not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Nevertheless, Mr. Biss’s behavior—coupled with the facts that (a) the privilege was raised, (b) the privilege was perhaps withdrawn after a lengthy sidebar, and (c) Mr. Allen was fired—gives me little confidence that F.S.D. could make a knowing waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights under these circumstances.

The judge notes that he can appoint a lawyer for the employees, but since Biss insists that "Jennifer" has been retained, for now he will resist the temptation to appoint them counsel. However, "if concerns arise about the exercise of independent judgment by the attorney replacing Mr. Allen, I may reconsider the necessity of appointing counsel."

It also concludes with this oddity:

Plaintiffs raised a related concern. Plaintiffs explained that they had not identified new counsel previously out of concern Defendants’ attorneys will contact the new lawyer to intimidate him or her or threaten ethics violations. (Doc. 107 at 8 n.5.) At the hearing, I expressed my belief that, if I were in the new lawyer’s shoes, I would welcome communications from counsel familiar with the case and the underlying documents as I prepared to independently evaluate my clients’ potential legal jeopardy.

So, once again, Biss's actions don't seem to be doing him any favors, yet haven't reached the point at which he gets sanctioned for his behavior either. Sometimes it truly is stunning how much leeway a court will give certain lawyers. Still, none of this is good for the Nunes family and their case.

Filed Under: california, deposition, devin nunes, esquire, iowa, nunes family, pleading the 5th, ryan lizza, steven biss
Companies: hearst, nustar farms

DOJ Dropped Its Subpoena For NunesAlt Twitter Account One Week After Twitter Called Bullshit On Its Demands

from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-wasted-tax-dollars-and-goodwill dept

Well, that was fast. I mean, this all actually happened a few months ago but the unsealing process makes this all seem very sudden.

Yesterday, it was revealed that the Trump DOJ sent a subpoena to Twitter demanding personal information related to the NunesAlt account -- one of several Rep. Devin Nunes has unsuccessfully tried to sue for defamation. It seemed very strange that the DOJ would be involved, but Nunes developed a close relationship with Trump over the past four years and it certainly appeared that this was some prime White House backscratching.

The subpoena was delivered to Twitter last November. On March 10, Twitter filed its motion to quash, noting Nunes' multiple attempts to sue satirical Twitter accounts, his lack of success in doing so, and his apparent attempts to use federal law enforcement resources to engage in discovery for him.

It also noted the DOJ's subpoena made no mention as to why Twitter should turn over this information. It wasn't until Twitter called the AUSA who signed the subpoena that it was provided answers. The answers were incomplete. The DOJ claimed it was part of an investigation into threats allegedly made by the account. But the DOJ refused to show Twitter the alleged threats, much less answer any of its other questions.

A week later (but only one day later for us, thanks to a gag order being tossed into the spacetime continuum), the DOJ dropped its request [PDF] for this Twitter users' info. As was the case with the subpoena sent to Twitter, there's not a whole lot of information in the DOJ's withdrawal of its information demand.

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits under seal this memorandum in opposition to Twitter, Inc.’s motion to quash grand jury subpoena and to vacate non-disclosure order.

On March 17, 2021, counsel for the United States informed counsel for Twitter, Inc. that the grand jury subpoena at issue is withdrawn. The term of the nondisclosure order has ended. As there is no dispute between the parties, Twitter, Inc.’s motion should be denied as moot.

Given this swift dismissal of its demand for info -- one supposedly tied to a super-serious investigation into "threatening communications in interstate commerce" (a complicated way of saying the internet was involved) -- it's difficult to believe this was anything other than a fishing expedition performed on behalf of Devin Nunes, who has had zero success talking courts into compelling the unmasking of his critics. If the DOJ really had anything worth investigating, it wouldn't have abandoned its efforts at the first sign of resistance.

And we can't let this whole thing pass by without noting how gag orders disrupt the justice system and keep the public from learning what's being done with their tax dollars. Finding out about something like this six months after it was initiated and two months after the DOJ called it quits is ridiculous. The only thing protected here was the DOJ's shoddy reputation as a mere extension of President Trump's will while he and Bill Barr were still in control. That the DOJ refused to show Twitter the alleged threats strongly suggests it was attempting to turn heated (but protected) speech into a criminal act to help Devin Nunes out with his defamation lawsuits.

Filed Under: devin nunes, doj, intimidation, nunesalt, satire, subpoena
Companies: twitter

DOJ Sent A Grand Jury Subpoena To Twitter Demanding The Unmasking Of A Twitter User Being Sued By Devin Nunes

from the lots-of-wtf-going-on-here dept

For the past couple of years, Devin Nunes has been suing Twitter users over obviously satirical accounts that use his name, the most famous of which is "Devin Nunes' Cow." He has yet to succeed, but he has managed to clutter the courts with a bunch of vexatious litigation that, so far, has only proved Devin's skin is mighty thin and that he should definitely make better choices when it comes to choosing legal representation.

I suppose if Nunes wants to blow money on lawsuits that are doomed to fail, that's his business. Unfortunately, the victims of his bullshit lawsuits are having their time and money sucked away by a man so apparently powerless he cannot handle criticism without getting the courts involved.

But there's a new wrinkle and some new dollars being spent. This latest development -- a few months delayed thanks to a gag order -- involves the expenditure of money contributed by a whole lot of non-parties: US taxpayers. One of the last things the Trump DOJ did before it became Biden's DOJ was send Twitter a grand jury subpoena demanding identifying information from one of the Twitter accounts being sued by Nunes. (h/t Kevin Poulsen)

Given Nunes was suing individuals in civil suits, it's hard to see how or why the Department of Justice got involved, much less why this is a grand jury issue. Sure, Nunes may have made wild allegations about RICO violations and illegal impersonation, but no one has made any credible allegations about actual criminal activity, much less federal crimes.

And yet, here we are, looking at the DOJ's (granted) request [PDF] to keep Twitter from talking about this subpoena (dated November 23, 2020) and Twitter's motion [PDF] to quash the ridiculous, First Amendment threatening demand for account information.

The only thing that can be confirmed about the DOJ's (apparently ongoing) investigation is that the government believes the NunesAlt account said something threatening to someone (presumably Nunes) at some point in time. Not that the DOJ bothered to explain any of this in its subpoena.

The Gag Order prohibits Twitter from “disclos[ing] the existence of the Subpoena to any other person (except attorneys for PROVIDER for the purpose of receiving legal advice) for a period of 90 days (commencing on the date of this Order)” because it finds “reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.” Schottlaender Decl., Ex. B. The Gag Order does not describe the basis for this finding, and Twitter has not received any information from the government about the “reasonable grounds” upon which the Gag Order was based.

Twitter had to approach the DOJ to get clarification. It got some, but not much.

Twitter’s counsel asked whether the government could offer any information about its investigation that may alleviate Twitter’s concerns. Counsel for the government stated that he understood Twitter’s concerns and would attempt to learn more about the investigation and about what he could share with Twitter. Shortly thereafter, the government stated that it was investigating “potential violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 875(c) (threatening communications in interstate commerce).” Twitter asked whether the government could share the threatening communications at issue, or otherwise state whether those threats had been directed to Congressman Nunes. The government replied that it would not provide any additional information about its investigation.

That's the basis for the grand jury. And without more, it seems like a pretty specious use of federal resources. Plus, as Twitter points out in its motion to dump the subpoena, this seems to be more about making critics of Nunes feel threatened than about any threats Nunes (or someone else) received.

It appears to Twitter that the Subpoena may be related to Congressman Devin Nunes’s repeated efforts to unmask individuals behind parody accounts critical of him. His efforts to suppress critical speech are as well-publicized as they are unsuccessful. He recently sued Twitter, attempting to hold it liable for speech by the parody Twitter accounts @DevinCow, @DevinNunesMom, @fireDevinNunes, and @DevinGrapes, and asking the court in that case to order Twitter to disclose information identifying those accounts. Each of these accounts were engaged in anonymous political speech critical of Congressman Nunes. That suit was dismissed against Twitter in June 2020 because Twitter cannot be liable for information originating with a third-party user of its service, but it appears to still be an active lawsuit against the Twitter users @DevinCow and @DevinNunesMom. Shortly thereafter, Twitter received the Subpoena. Public Tweets posted by the Account indicate that it may be operated by the same user as @DevinNunesMom. Congressman Nunes’s attorney also sought third-party discovery from Twitter to unmask the @DevinCow account in an entirely unrelated case.

Given Congressman Nunes’s numerous attempts to unmask his anonymous critics on Twitter—described in detail herein—Twitter is concerned that this Subpoena is but another mechanism to attack its users’ First Amendment rights. Recent litigation also alleges that Congressman Nunes may be using the government to unmask his critics. See Declaration of Hayden Schottlaender (“Schottlaender Decl.”), Ex. D. Twitter respectfully asks the Court to determine whether the government has a “compelling interest” in obtaining the Account’s basic subscriber information, or, on the other hand, is endeavoring to unmask someone merely for engaging in speech critical of Congressman Nunes.

That's really what appears to be happening here. The DOJ decided to work on the behalf of Devin Nunes, using unproven claims of issued threats as the foundation for demands for personal info. Sure, it may just be a coincidence that the DOJ is targeting one of Nunes' critics (and lawsuit defendants), but it's asking a lot from everyone to believe this coincidence had nothing to do with the Congressman's tireless support of Donald Trump and the DOJ's own obeisance to Number 45 during Bill Barr's tenure as the Attorney General.

Twitter's concern is plausible: the DOJ was mobilized to target a critic of a powerful lawmaker over what is likely protected speech. The DOJ needs to act in utmost caution in cases like this. And maybe it did. But even if it's completely in the right, Nunes and his constant suing of critics make it difficult to see this as anything other than the federal government getting into the business of keeping Devin from having his feelings hurt.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, devin nunes, doj, donald trump, intimidation, parody, satire, subpoena, unmasking, william barr
Companies: twitter

Devin Nunes' Favorite Lawyer On The Hook For Over $20k In Sanctions

from the pay-up-biss dept

Last month we wrote that Rep. Devin Nunes' favorite lawyer, Steven Biss, who has been filing frivolous, vexatious SLAPP suit after frivolous, vexatious SLAPP suit, was finally facing some sanctions. The specific case did not directly involve Nunes, but rather one of his aides, Derek Harvey, who had filed a ridiculous SLAPP suit against CNN. As we wrote last month, the court had easily tossed the original lawsuit and warned Biss not to file an amended complaint unless he had a credible legal theory. Biss did not have a credible legal theory, but he still filed an amended complaint. And thus, the court issued sanctions, saying that Harvey, Biss and other lawyers would be on the hook for CNN's legal fees.

The latest filing in the case is the bill coming due. Harvey and Biss need to pay CNN $21,437.50 in legal fees (and an additional $52.26 in costs and expenses). That might not seem like that much in the grand scheme of things (especially for a lawyer who has claimed his client, Devin Nunes, is owed over a billion dollars for defamation, but it is still real money that someone is going to need to pay -- though it remains an open question as to who is actually going to pay it).

There's not much to see in the ruling itself, as it basically says that the fees CNN's lawyers outlined are within the standards that the court's local rules say are "presumptively reasonable." The lawyers admit that they're actually asking for less than they normally charge in order to keep them "reasonable" in the Court's eyes, and the Court basically says "sounds good."

It does often seem that lawyers who file tons of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits are able to get away with it for a while, with courts giving them many, many chances and being extremely reluctant to issue sanctions. And, even when sanctions are issued, they tend to be relatively low. However, with such repeat offenders, we've often seen that courts across the country take notice, and once one court has sanctioned this kind of behavior, it can open the floodgates. We'll see what happens in other Biss lawsuits.

Filed Under: derek harvey, devin nunes, legal fees, sanctions, slapp, steven biss
Companies: cnn

Steven Biss Loses Yet Again; Judges Still Resist Sanctions

from the so-many-second-chances dept

It truly is incredible how many second chances the courts are willing to give lawyers who clearly seem to be filing vexatious SLAPP suits. The lawyer in Devin Nunes' long list of SLAPP suits, Steven Biss, has a few other clients as well, though so many of them seem to be in the same Trumpist circles. The other thing they have in common is that Steven Biss seems to have no problem filing vexatious wasteful SLAPP suits to try to stifle speech. And these cases always fail. It really kinda makes you wonder (1) why anyone would hire Biss and (2) who's paying for all of these failed lawsuits? This latest one is a follow-up to a case we covered a little over a year ago, in which Biss lost a case he filed on behalf of a Russian-born academic, Svetlana Lokhova, going after a Cambridge academic named Stefan Halper and a variety of media organizations.

As we explained last year, the case really stemmed from some news stories that came out soon after Michael Flynn was fired as National Security Advisor. A bunch of stories came out claiming that there were "concerns" about potential Flynn links to Russia, including some stories that mentioned a dinner that Flynn had with some people in Cambridge, including Lokhova. Lokhova blamed Halper as the source of these stories, which she claimed were defamatory (even though many of them didn't even name her). As we noted, there is a Nunes/Lukohova connection in that Nunes referenced Lukhova as part of his bizarre conspiracy theory saying that Robert Mueller's team should face criminal charges. Nunes seemed a lot more concerned about people accusing Flynn of stuff and then investigating it, than whether or not there was any truth to the claims.

Either way, the lower court tossed out the case, noting that most of the articles/statements in question were published over a year earlier, meaning that the statute of limitations had passed. As for the statements that were made more recently, they weren't defamatory. The district court judge did call out Biss' bad behavior in the case, but still opted not to issue sanctions against him.

Biss appealed, and the latest ruling is from the 4th Circuit basically saying everything the district court said all over again -- including agreeing not to sanction Biss, even as the judges seem to recognize that he's pursuing a garbage case (and that he has a history of this).

Once again, the court notes that statements made outside of the statute of limitations cannot be the basis for a defamation claim and, once again, rejects the idea that just because people tweeted links to those articles more recently that it counts as republication. As we've covered many times, it's pretty widely settled that there's a "first publication" rule, and the statute of limitations starts ticking when a story is first published. Linking to it does not restart the clock. The court even notes that the case that Biss tried to rely on to make this argument... says the opposite.

Appellant relies heavily on Stephen G. Perlman, Rearden LLC v. Vox Media, Inc., No. 10046, 2015 WL 5724838, at *19 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2015) (denying a motion to dismiss a claim that alleged a defamatory statement was republished by a hyperlink reference because republication generally presents a question of fact). Appellant’s reliance on Perlman is misplaced for two reasons. First, the Superior Court of Delaware subsequently granted summary judgment on the issue, holding that a hyperlink directing readers to a previous article on the same website does not direct the previous article to a new audience, it merely reshuffles the existing audience. See Perlman v. Vox Media, Inc., No. N195C-07-235, 2020 WL 3474143, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2020). That is precisely the case here. The original New York Times article that Appellant alleges was defamatory was hyperlinked in a later New York Times article. Thus, the hyperlink served as a reference for the New York Times’ existing audience and did not direct the old article to a new audience. Second, the plaintiff in Perlman alleged that the text that contained the hyperlink was itself defamatory. Appellant makes no such allegation here. Nor could she credibly do so, given that the hyperlink is contained in the underlined portion of the following sentence: “Mr. Halper’s contacts have prompted Republicans and the president to incorrectly accuse the F.B.I. of spying on the campaign.” J.A. 311. Clearly the text in which the hyperlink was contained bears no relationship to Appellant. Thus, Appellant’s attempt to rely on a factual dispute regarding whether the hyperlink constitutes republication fails.

Other people tweeting links to the articles also does not constitute republication. And, again, the court is not at all impressed with the case Biss thinks helps his cause:

Appellant further asserts that republication occurs each time a third party tweets an article, thus re-setting the statute of limitations and exposing the original publisher to liability. Notably, Appellant cites no cases that are directly on point. Instead, Appellant relies almost exclusively on Weaver v. Beneficial Finance Co., a Virginia Supreme Court decision from 1957. See 98 S.E.2d 687 (Va. 1957). In Weaver, the court analyzed whether sending an allegedly defamatory letter to the plaintiff’s employer constituted republication because any claim based on the original publication of the letter was time barred. Id. at 689–90. The Weaver court observed, “It is well settled that the author or originator of a defamation is liable for a republication or repetition thereof by third persons, provided it is the natural and probable consequence of his act, or he has presumptively or actually authorized or directed its republication.” Id. at 690. The court qualified its observation by noting “the original author is not responsible if the republication or repetition is not the natural and probable consequence of his act, but is the independent and unauthorized act of a third party.” Id. Here, Appellant argues that each third party tweet constitutes republication pursuant to Weaver because Weaver further observed that “where the words declared on are slanderous per se their repetition by others is the natural and probable result of the original slander.”

Ignoring for a moment that Weaver was decided over 60 years ago, well before the ubiquity of the Internet, this issue can be resolved pursuant to the terms of Weaver itself because there the court recognized a distinction when applying republication rules “to newspapers and magazines” as opposed to individuals. Weaver, 98 S.E.2d at 691 (citing Hartmann v. Time, 166 F.2d 127 (3rd Cir. 1947)). The citation to Hartmann is particularly significant because in Hartmann, the Third Circuit observed that with respect to newspapers, the “single publication rule is the preferable one” because public policy and the freedom of the press command that “newspapers and magazines which are published on a nationwide basis[] should not be subjected to the harassment of repeated law suits.” 166 F.2d at 134. This observation is consistent with the Armstrong court’s pronouncement that the “rationale underlying the single publication rule” aims to “avoid the overwhelming multiplicity of lawsuits that could result from defamatory statements contained in mass publications such as newspapers and magazines.” 2003 WL 1960685, at *2. If each third party tweet containing the article were to constitute a republication, the multiplicity of lawsuits assuredly would be beyond overwhelming.

As for the statements that were published within the statute of limitations, they also have myriad problems. First, it's not clear that Biss sued the right party. One of the statements at issue was a series of tweets from Malcolm Nance, who was not sued. Instead, Biss/Lokhova sued MSNBC, where Nance is a contributor. And that runs into some problems:

However, even assuming arguendo that the tweets are defamatory, Appellant’s claim fails because she has not adequately pled facts that support holding NBCUniversal liable pursuant to the respondeat superior doctrine. “[U]nder the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious act of his employee if the employee was performing his employer’s business and acting within the scope of his employment.” Parker v. Carilion Clinic, 819 S.E.2d 809, 819 (Va. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted)....

[....]

The sole factual allegation supporting Appellant’s conclusory statement that Nance “conducts the business of ‘NBC/MSNBC’” on his Twitter account is that “NBC/MSNBC” appears in Nance’s Twitter bio. J.A. 76. But viewed in context, this is not enough to give rise to apparent agency. “NBC/MSNBC” appears at the end of a long list of credentials that are personal to Nance. Moreover, Nance’s username, profile picture, and banner contain no mention of NBC, and the profile contains a link to a website that is operated by an organization for which Nance serves as the executive director. Finally, one of the allegedly defamatory tweets appears in a thread of tweets that begins with Nance promoting his personal book. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion is that Nance was operating his Twitter account in his personal capacity and not with the actual or apparent authority of NBCUniversal. “[C]onclusory language in the complaint” does not alter this conclusion and cannot “establish vicarious liability.” Garnett, 892 F.3d at 146. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s defamation claims based on tweets authored by Nance.

There's also a Washington Post article, but there's a big problem with that one: it's not even remotely defamatory:

The amended complaint alleges two defamatory false statements in the Post Article: (1) that “[Appellee] Halper ‘attended’ . . . the February 2014 dinner”; and (2) that “[Appellee] Halper and Dearlove were disconcerted by the attention the then-DIA chief showed to a Russian-born graduate student.” J.A. 75. We can quickly dispose of any claim regarding the first statement because it is plainly “of and concerning” Appellee Halper alone and says nothing about Appellant, let alone anything defamatory. Schaecher, 772 S.E.2d at 598. Moreover, the dinner in question would have to be particularly extraordinary for merely noting one’s attendance to carry the required “defamatory sting.” Id. at 594.

Regarding the second statement, we conclude that it cannot be reasonably read to defame Appellant, either directly or through implication or innuendo. The statement expresses that Appellee Halper and Dearlove “were disconcerted by the attention” General Flynn showed to an unnamed graduate student. Even if we infer the unnamed graduated student is Appellant, it says nothing of her behavior toward General Flynn -- it only addresses his behavior toward her. This is especially relevant given the article included a disclaimer reporting, “[T]he student and a Defense Department official traveling with Flynn have denied that anything inappropriate occurred.” J.A. 75.

So, uh, there's nothing defamatory in there at all.

Because Biss is Biss, he also tried to toss in the kinds of excess claims that you see in too many bogus defamation SLAPP suits these days: tortious interference and civil conspiracy. The court dumps each easily.

Then we get to the sanctions section, and, at the beginning, it sounds like the court really is thinking about finally sanctioning Biss for his bad behavior. They're certainly aware of it.

Of note, this is not the first time attorney Biss’s litigation conduct has earned reprimand. His history of unprofessional conduct is long. See, e.g., Nunes v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-889, 2020 WL 2616704, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 22, 2020) (“It is with chagrin that the Court must begin to address this motion by observing that Plaintiff engages in ad hominin attacks against CNN and others in the Amended Compliant which the Court cannot tolerate.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Steele v. Goodman, No. 3:17-cv-601, 2019 WL 3367983, at *3 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2019))); see also Nunes v. Lizza, 486 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1299–1300 (N.D. Iowa 2020) (requiring Biss to file “a second amended complaint . . . stripped of all such spurious allegations” and directing Biss “not to file any further public pleadings referencing such matters without first obtaining leave of the Court and showing that there is a good faith factual basis for the allegations and that they are relevant and material to some matter at issue in this litigation”). In fact, attorney Biss had his license suspended in 2009 for unprofessional conduct including breaching fiduciary duties and violating federal securities law. See Va. State Bar v. Biss, No. CL07-1846 (Va. Cir. Ct. Nov. 26, 2008). And, even during his suspension period, attorney Biss failed to be forthright about his suspension status with an opposing party when engaging in negotiations on behalf of a client, resulting in an additional 30 day suspension of his license. See In re Steven Scott Biss, No. 09-032-078962 (Va. State Bar Disciplinary Bd. Nov. 3, 2009).

Basically, the appeals court says that choosing not to discipline Biss is well within the district court's discretion:

The district court chastised attorney Biss for “directing unprofessional ad hominem attacks at [Appellee] Halper and others,” noting that such behavior “adds nothing but unnecessary heat to this litigation.” J.A. 331. But in the end, the district court elected not to sanction attorney Biss at this point and denied the motion to sanction without prejudice. We agree with the district court’s observations and endorse the court’s reprimands concerning inappropriate ad hominem attacks. We conclude, however, that the district court acted within its discretion because we are not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Six v. Generations Fed. Credit Union, 891 F.3d 508, 519 (4th Cir. 2018). To the contrary, the record establishes that although the district court did “not condone the [litigation] tactics” at issue, it elected to exercise caution and employ a wait-and-see approach based on post-judgment litigation.

And thus, Biss escapes further sanction yet again. Given his activities over the past few years, it does not seem like Steven Biss has any intention of changing his behavior. It seems quite likely that we will continue to see him filing frivolous and vexatious SLAPP suits that seek to silence journalism and commentary about his crew of Trump-loving clients.

All this, of course, is just yet another reminder that every state needs better anti-SLAPP laws and we need a federal anti-SLAPP law to help stop these lawsuits and put the filer of them on the hook for the legal fees of defendants.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, malcolm nance, slapp, stefan halper, steven biss, svetlana lokhova

Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another One Of His SLAPP Suits

from the keep-'em-coming dept

A little over a year ago, a DC watchdog group had asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate Rep. Devin Nunes over his total failure to disclose who the hell is paying for all of his various frivolous SLAPP suits. As the group, Campaign Legal Center noted, Congress is forbidden from receiving free legal services unless they have set up a Legal Expense Fund -- and at least at the time of the investigation request, Nunes had not done so, despite having filed a bunch of lawsuits over the previous year.

As far as I can tell, nothing ever happened regarding that, but the issue is again worth exploring. Devin Nunes has been losing his lawsuits (badly) but continuing to push on with them anyway. In the fall of 2019, Nunes sued Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson claiming racketeering (It's Not RICO, Dammit), because (he bizarrely claimed) they were harassing Nunes by filing a different ethics complaint against him. Nunes had some silly story about how Fusion GPS was trying to "interfere" with his "investigation." The "investigation" being Nunes' laughable attempt to argue that the Steele Dossier was illegal.

Anyway, a year ago that case was easiliy dismissed with the court warning Nunes' lawyer Steven Biss that, while he could refile, if they didn't add more substance to the complaint, they may face Rule 11 sanctions. In a move that will surprise no one, Biss/Nunes still filed an amended complaint last April. Now the case has been dismissed again. For reasons that I'm not clear on, over the summer the case was reassigned to a different judge, and that's why the new dismissal is from Judge Rossie Alston, rather than Judge Liam O'Grady, who handled the first dismissal.

The judge does the basic "It's Not RICO, Dammit" analysis to highlight that the Nunes/Biss claims of racketeering are ridiculous:

Here, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead an association-in-fact enterprise because the Second Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege the three structural features critical to support a RICO enterprise allegation. Both the Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s Opposition merely recite the elements of an association-in-fact enterprise and allege only conclusory facts.

Critically, no reading of the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended complaint can support a finding that an enterprise operated with the purpose or relationships the law requires.... Instead, the Second Amended Complaint is best read to allege that Defendants and the three other individuals and entities named in that document engaged in independent, parallel conduct directed at Plaintiff Nunes. By Plaintiff’s own telling, the entities and persons involved had different memberships and methods—even assuming they all shared the same generalized “motive” to harm Plaintiff’s political career. On its face, this is insufficient evidence of an association-in-fact enterprise with a shared purpose.... The only connection Plaintiff alleges between Defendants and Campaign for Accountability, McClatchy, and Mair is that Defendants “chose CfA, Mair and McClatchy” as “fronts or ‘cut-outs’ to carry out the obstruction scheme.”... These rote allegations that Defendants “operated” and “conducted the business of the enterprise” are unsupported by any specific facts. At best, Plaintiff alleges “consciously parallel conduct, which is not sufficient to satisfy Twombly’s pleading standard[.]”

There's a lot more, but this is the same reason the original complaint got tossed out. The judge also notes that the basis of Nunes' RICO claim is that... people filed an ethics complaint against him. The judge appears to raise his eyebrows at this concept:

Before analyzing the specific predicate acts, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s case rests on importing a wholly novel set of facts—ethics complaints submitted against a sitting congressperson and providing research on that lawmaker to a news outlet for publication—into the civil RICO context.

Over and over and over again, the court finds that Biss just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that can't possibly be RICO. And thus, in the end:

All told, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the facts set forth in his Second Amended Complaint add up to form a single RICO predicate act. The Court reaches this conclusion having considered, as it must when deciding a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Plaintiff

Given that Judge O'Grady had already warned Biss and Nunes that filing more of this nonsense may lead to Rule 11 sanctions, perhaps you'd expect Judge Alston to follow through on that threat. Unfortunately, as is all too often the case, the judge has decided to go easy on Biss (despite the fact that he keeps filing so many sketchy lawsuits). The defendants in the case even highlighted to the judge Biss' and Nunes' track record of filing all these bogus SLAPP suits. And, even so, the court lets them off the hook:

The Court declines to impose sanctions under Rule 11 at this time. The allegations made by Plaintiff are serious. They just cannot and do not confer authority to this Court to address the complaints Plaintiff has made. In this regard, Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that litigation “asserted in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment” may be met with sanctions. ... Here, Plaintiff’s counsel has filed three complaints in this case since September of 2019. The Court has not issued a favorable ruling on any of the claims Plaintiff asserts. Accordingly, the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s RICO claims is with prejudice and without leave to amend because in the Court’s view, amendment would be futile

So... why no sanctions? No further explanation is given. This is, unfortunately, par for the course. As we've seen over and over and over again, lawyers tend to have to have a reputation for filing dozens of these kinds of bogus lawsuits before courts finally start issuing sanctions.

So, no, Devin, it's not RICO, and you and Biss got off lucky (again!) this time, even though you still lost, like you've lost all of these lawsuits. And many of us are still wondering, who is paying for all of this wasteful, vexatious litigation?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, devin nunes, free speech, glenn simpson, rico, sanctions, slapp, steven biss
Companies: fusion gps

As Steven Biss Continues Filing Bogus SLAPP Suits, He Finally Gets Sanctioned In Case Involving Devin Nunes' Aide

from the how-is-this-not-the-norm-yet? dept

Lawyer Steven Biss has built up quite a reputation for himself over the past few years, especially in filing highly questionable, obviously bogus SLAPP suits on behalf of Rep. Devin Nunes and a rotating cast of characters in and around Trumpist orbits. For example, he just recently was the lawyer for Jack Flynn, the brother of disgraced (briefly) former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, in suing CNN for pointing out that the Flynns had repeated some standard QAnon conspiracy nonsense in a video recorded at a family barbecue, and posted online with some QAnon hashtags. Jack was in the video which was then featured in a CNN story about QAnon. The crux of the defamation claim is this:

In the piece, O’Sullivan falsely claimed that “where we go one, we go all” was an “infamous QAnon slogan promoted by Trump’s first National Security Advisor Michael Flynn”.

The lawsuit tries to argue that "where we go one, we go all" is not in fact a QAnon slogan (they claim that the phrase goes back to John F. Kennedy -- ignoring the fact that today it absolutely is associated with QAnon as are the hashtags that Flynn used in posting it). The lawsuit is laughable and is likely to be laughed out of court like every other Biss SLAPP suit.

Speaking of which, days later, in yet another Biss SLAPP suit, a court finally sanctioned Biss. This case loosely involves Nunes, even though Nunes is not technically a party to the case. Instead, it involves one of Nunes' top advisors, Dereck Harvey. You might recognize Harvey from another story, about the time when Biss sent a letter on behalf of Nunes... threatening to sue fellow Congressional Rep Ted Lieu. In that story, we noted that just as Nunes was threatening Lieu, Congress had released a bunch of documents showing how Nunes' aide Harvey had worked with the since indicted Lev Parnas to try to set up some meetings between former Ukranian officials and Nunes.

That takes us to the present case. Back in October, Harvey sued CNN and Parnas over statements that were made on CNN, based on statements from Parnas and his lawyer, Joseph Bondy, about alleged efforts by Harvey to set up meeting with those very same former Ukrainian officials and his boss, Nunes. In February, the case was dismissed against CNN -- noting that the complaint failed to describe how the statements were defamatory, and a bunch of them weren't even about Harvey himself (which they'd need to be in order to be defamatory).

The judge gave Biss and Harvey a chance to file an amended complaint, which they did, at the very last minute.

Anyway, it would appear that the judge is not impressed by Biss's lawyering here, taking just a few weeks to dismiss the case and tell Harvey and Biss they're on the hook for CNN's legal fees. As the court notes, this whole case really seems to be a sort of Nunes-lawsuit-by-proxy:

As this Court previously explained, Harvey’s suit is at heart, a continuation of litigation of Congressman Nunes with respect to media coverage of his own political efforts in support of former President Trump... In fact, this Court was hard pressed to see how several of the allegedly defamatory statements cited in Harvey’s original Complaint had much to do with the Plaintiff at all, as they focused almost entirely on the actions of Congressman Nunes....

Also, as was found in the original dismissal, most of the statements in question were not actually defamatory:

It was also unclear to this Court how the statements at issue were in fact defamatory in nature, tending to “expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”... Harvey was acting as a Senior Advisor to Nunes, the “leader of the Republican opposition” to the first impeachment of former President Trump, and the public record includes House Republicans’ statements that there was “nothing wrong with asking serious questions” about the Bidens and their dealings with Ukraine. To suggest it was defamatory for CNN to state or otherwise imply that Harvey was assisting Nunes in his investigation of a political rival is simply without merit.

The point of an amended complaint after the initial complaint has been dismissed without prejudice is to fix the problems with the complaint (i.e., fixing the deficiencies that resulted in the case being dismissed). But it appears that didn't happen here and the judge seems to recognize that almost no effort was made here at all, other than to drag out the case.

The Plaintiff has done nothing to address this Court’s concerns that the statements have little do with Harvey at all. The statements allege nothing more than that Harvey was a source of information about Congressman Nunes or an unnamed subordinate acting in compliance with the orders of his superior.... The Plaintiff has also failed to address the fact that none of the statements are materially false... Adding the phrase “materially false” to certain paragraphs of the Amended Complaint does not change the substance of the statements, or the facts related to this case. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”) The Plaintiff did omit a portion of what is now alleged as Statement 5 that this Court held was clearly unactionable due to its status as an opinion.... However, with respect to Statement 5, Harvey still fails to state a claim on the bases that the statement only references Harvey as a source of information about Congressman Nunes and is not materially false.

Harvey made some additions to his Amended Complaint that were presumably meant to address this Court’s concerns that none of the statements were actually defamatory. For example, Harvey added allegations that CNN’s publications “could cost him his security clearance and subject him to discipline.” ... He also asserts that CNN’s reporting falsely accused him of publishing “derogatory statements concerning Nunes—Plaintiff’s superior” and that the accusations “were highly prejudicial” to his employment with the congressman.... Theses additions do not aide the Plaintiff’s case.

There's also the issue of actual malice. Harvey tries to argue that he's not a public figure so the actual malice standard doesn't matter, but as the court said in its original ruling, under 4th Circuit precedent, he clearly is. So then, there's this attempt to challenge the actual malice standard that the judge is (rightly) having none of:

Harvey’s next argument regarding actual malice is even less meritorious. Harvey asks this Court to completely ignore Supreme Court precedent and reconsider what he asserts to be an outdated actual malice standard established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan... As Plaintiff’s counsel has already once been instructed, “for obvious reasons” a district court cannot simply overturn a decision of the Supreme Court. The actual malice standard as articulated by the Court in Sullivan controls in this case, and for the same reasons detailed in this Court’s earlier opinion, Harvey has failed to state a plausible claim that CNN and its reporters made any of the statements at issue with actual malice.

You almost get the feeling these batshit crazy cases are an attempt to get a case up to Clarence Thomas, given his well publicized desire to get rid of the Sullivan standard.

Either way, the court decides that this weak showing is easily sanctionable:

In the previous Memorandum Opinion, this Court specifically stated that Plaintiff Harvey was permitted to file an Amended Complaint if he possessed facts to cure the “manifest deficiencies” addressed in that opinion by March 4, 2021.... This Court also specifically warned that such Amended Complaint would be subject to dismissal if the Plaintiff failed to cure the noted deficiencies.... Nevertheless, after the clerk’s office of this Court had closed and just hours before the deadline of midnight on March 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint nearly identical to the original Complaint filed in this case and thoroughly discussed in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion. As the above analysis explains, the Plaintiff did not cure any of the deficiencies noted by the Court. The filing of such an Amended Complaint is the sort of bad faith courts have repeatedly found to merit sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the courts’ inherent power to sanction.....

... This Court finds that Plaintiff Harvey’s filing of the Amended Complaint unreasonably multiplied the proceedings in this case, and this Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to impose a sanction as to the Plaintiff and his counsel under this court’s inherent authority

The end result is that a combination of Harvey, Biss (and a third lawyer in the case who was seeking to get off the case) are on the hook for CNN's legal fees in the case. Of course, since it's never been clear who has been paying Biss for all these lawsuits in the first place, it remains unclear who will be paying the sanctions as well.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, actual malice, defamation, dereck harvey, devin nunes, free speech, jack flynn, legal fees, michael flynn, sanctions, slapp, steven biss
Companies: cnn

Reporter Sues DOJ To See If It Is Trying To Help Devin Nunes Unmask @DevinCow Twitter Account

from the is-the-fbi-investigating-a-satirical-cow? dept

As I'm pretty sure most of you know, Rep. Devin Nunes has been filing a ton of blatant SLAPP lawsuits trying to silence criticism and mockery of him, as well as critical reporting. Kind of ironic for a guy who co-sponsored a bill to discourage frivolous lawsuits and who has regularly presented himself as a free speech supporter. What kicked off those lawsuits, somewhat incredibly, was a satirical Twitter account, @DevinCow (mocking Devin Nunes for repeatedly holding himself out as a "dairy farmer" from Tulare California when it turns out his family farm moved to Iowa years ago).

You may also know that at the time Nunes sued the satirical cow for making fun of him online, the @DevinCow account had a grand total of 1,204 followers. Within a couple days, @DevinCow had 400k followers and had surpassed Nunes' himself. Today the Cow has 772k followers and is one of the most interesting Twitter accounts online, with a huge pasture of followers. Pretty incredible.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the case against the cow is still going on, and Nunes and his lawyer, Steven Biss, have constantly gone to fairly extreme lengths just try to figure out who is behind the Cow account. The craziest of all was that Biss used a totally unrelated case, that did not involve Nunes, and then abused his subpoena powers to ask Twitter to reveal who was behind @DevinCow, despite the Cow being totally unrelated to the case. Biss and Nunes made up some nonsense about how the cow was connected, but it was clearly ridiculous, and a judge rejected it.

Of course, that raised lots of concerns about whether or not Nunes might abuse other methods to try to uncover the cow. Freelance journalist Shawn Musgrave filed a FOIA request with the Justice Department and the FBI to see if Nunes might have sought to use either organization to try to uncover the Cow's identity. After all, Nunes was (incredibly) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and would have greater access to the FBI and its surveillance tools than just about any other Congressional Representative. Musgrave made it abundantly clear in his FOIA that he was not seeking to identify the Cow and did not want any information that might reveal the Cow's identity. He just wanted to know if the DOJ or the FBI had sought to uncover the Cow's identity.

However, the DOJ and FBI have failed to comply, so now Musgrave is suing the DOJ to try to get them to actually properly respond to the FOIA request.

As a result of the repeated efforts by Cong. Nunes and his legal team to unmask @DevinCow—of which the above instances are merely examples—Musgrave filed two FOIA requests—with the permission of @DevinCow’s owner—to ascertain the degree to which FBI and DOJ—with or without Cong. Nunes’s involvement—have attempted to identify the anonymous owner of the @DevinCow Twitter account.

The lawsuit explains what the FOIA request sought:

On 9 November 2020, Musgrave submitted to FBI a request for five categories of records: (1) all main file records about the @DevinCow Twitter account; (2) all cross-references in the Central Records System about the @DevinCow Twitter account; (3) all internal emails or other correspondence records created or maintained by the Office of Congressional Affairs mentioning the @DevinCow Twitter account; (4) all emails in the FBI email system(s) or personal email folders on personal computers used by the Washington Field Office and San Francisco Field Office mentioning the @DevinCow Twitter account; and (5) all emails in the FBI email system(s) or personal email folders on personal computers used by the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch mentioning the @DevinCow Twitter account.

Musgrave added, “Please note that we do not wish to know the identity of the owner of the @DevinCow account, so the FBI should automatically redact any personally identifying information about that individual while releasing the contextual information which would show that PII was redacted. We are only interested in records discussing the account and/or the possible identification of its owner, not in the identity itself.”

Just a week later (which is insanely fast for FBI FOIA requests), the FBI was giving a Glomar response that it can "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of such records, and also claiming it was doing so to protect the privacy of third party individuals. But, of course, that's nonsense, since the request made it abundantly clear that the FBI should redact any such information. Musgrave appealed:

“It is nonsensical to issue a (b)(6) Glomar response to a request for records about an anonymous Twitter account, especially when the request has formally indicated that we have no interest in learning the identity of the user.”

On February 1st, the FBI rejected the appeal and stuck with its Glomar response.

So now, Musgrave has sued (with some very good FOIA lawyers) to try to force the FBI/DOJ to actually respond to the FOIA request for real. Should be an interesting case to follow.

Filed Under: devin nunes, devincow, doj, fbi, foia, free speech, satire, shawn musgrave, transparency

Court Tosses Devin Nunes' Silly SLAPP Lawsuit Against CNN

from the finally dept

As you may recall, Rep. Devin Nunes has spent the last few years suing all sorts of critics and journalists, in a vexatious bout of abusing the courts to try to stifle criticism. Most famously, Nunes sued a satirical cow on Twitter (that case is still ongoing). But in December of 2019 he sued CNN. As we noted at the time -- despite a weird column by a media critic at the Washington Post saying that this case was "halfway decent" -- the case seemed like the dumbest Nunes' suit we'd seen so far.

The filing was more performative nonsense, which seemed much more focused on spewing utter rubbish rather than making real defamation arguments. For example, a key part of the defamation claim involved statements on CNN about Nunes' contacts with Lev Parnas, the former Rudy Giuliani henchman who was arrested as part of a plot to get information from Ukraine to embarrass Joe Biden. Nunes' lawsuit argued that CNN defamed him... by getting the date wrong as to when Nunes and Parnas communicated. But... even if the date is wrong, that's not defamation. The case, like most other Nunes' cases, was filed in state court in Virginia, but thankfully, it was kicked up to federal court in NY. Bizarrely, Nunes went on TV claiming that CNN would be so scared to face him in court that the company likely wouldn't show up, talking tough on Fox News about how he was going to have to "track them down" to "hold them accountable." In fact, Nunes' "bet" Sean Hannity that CNN would "run" from this lawsuit and "not show up in court."

I don't think Hannity "took" the bet, but he would have won. CNN went to court and has now won the case. Easily. Let's just say Judge Laura Taylor Swain is not impressed by Nunes and whatever nonsense his lawyer, Steven Biss, presented to the court. Much of the opinion focuses on "choice of law" issues -- i.e., which state's defamation laws are at play here. There are four choices: Virginia, Washington DC, New York, or California. Nunes, basically wanted to apply any law except California's. You might think that's odd, because he (theoretically, at least) "lives" in California. He represents a district in California, and if any "damage" were actually done to his political chances, that damage would be done in California. But Nunes does not like the defamation laws of his own state -- in part because California requires that before you sue someone for defamation you first ask them to retract what they've written.

The judge notes that Nunes made the choice to file this case in Virginia, and it appears that his lawyer, Steven Biss, is so bad at this that he didn't even understand how Virginia's choice of law principles work -- because they make it pretty damn clear, that the proper state's laws to use are... California's.

Nunes makes two arguments against the application of California law, and in support of the application of either New York or Virginia law. In his supplemental briefing, Plaintiff argues that New York law should apply because CNN has a substantial presence there and Ward and Cuomo, who are generally located in New York, were present there when the statements were made. (See docket entry no. 43 at 5-6.) As a result, Plaintiff argues, the allegedly defamatory statements should be deemed to have been published exclusively in New York. As explained above, however, Virginia’s choice of law rules govern and, in Virginia and other lex loci jurisdictions, the place of publication is normally the location where statements are heard and understood. See Katz, 332 F. Supp. 2d at 915. In a multistate, mass media defamation case, it is impractical to determine that specific location; lex loci jurisdictions typically look in multistate circumstances to the place where the plaintiff suffers the most harm, which is usually held to be the state in which the plaintiff is domiciled, presumably based on an assumption that the information would be of most interest to third parties in that state and would be opened and read by a substantial number of persons there. Accordingly, the governing choice of law rule does not contemplate the application of New York state law based on the location of the reporters and the news organization.

In response to the argument that the laws that should be used are where the plaintiff suffered "the most harm" Nunes tried to argue that the real harm was in Virginia (?!?) or DC, not his "home" state of California. That's kinda telling:

Plaintiff further argues that, if the Court were to look to the place where he suffered the greatest injury, the laws of either Virginia or the District of Columbia should apply because that is where he performs his role overseeing the activities of the Intelligence Community.

But the judge basically says "lol, no."

Nunes does not proffer any additional facts that support his conclusory statement that he suffered substantial injury in either Virginia or District of Columbia, much less a greater injury there than in the home state that sends him to Congress as the representative of his district. His Amended Complaint alleges that he is a citizen of California and details his long family ties with, and extensive political service in and for, the state of California and its citizens.

Having considered persuasive authority and the legal and practical considerations underpinning Virginia’s application of the lex loci doctrine, the Court concludes that the Virginia Supreme Court would likely “follow the lead of other lex loci jurisdictions and pinpoint the place of greatest harm in this multistate libel case in the district where the plaintiff was domiciled, absent strong countervailing circumstances.” Hatfill v. Foster, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 365. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or “strong countervailing circumstances” that militate against finding that Nunes was injured primarily in California, the state of his domicile, and where he stands for election. He has proffered no facts from which the Court could find that there are extraordinary circumstances indicating that he suffered greater harm, i.e., that the allegedly defamatory material garnered greater third-party attention in a single jurisdiction other than his home state. Accordingly, the Court finds that California law governs Plaintiff’s claims.

And, so, California defamation laws apply, and California's laws require you to first ask for a retraction. Nunes tries to argue around that... but not very successfully.

Plaintiff advances four arguments against the application of the retraction statute to his defamation claims. First, he contends that the retraction statute does not apply to the article and television news program at issue because the statute on its face is limited to “daily or weekly news publications [and] radio broadcasts.” (Opp. at 6.) This argument is contrary to the plain language of the retraction statute, which specifically defines “‘[d]aily or weekly news publication’ [to] mean[] a publication, either in print or electronic form, that contains news on matters of public concern and that publishes at least once a week.”.... Given that CNN publishes multiple times a day and published the article in question in electronic form, this argument against the statute’s application is without merit.

Next, Plaintiff argues that the retraction statute does not apply to claims of defamation per se.... In support of his argument against the application of the statute to Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff cites inapposite cases that do not involve the retraction statute. See Todd v. Lovecruft, No. 19-CV-01751-DMR, 2020 WL 60199, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (holding, in case involving application of anti-SLAPP statute to allegations of sexual misconduct, that common law elements of defamation cause of action did not require plaintiff to plead special damages for claim of defamation per se); Clark v. Hidden Valley Lake Ass’n, No. 16-CV-02009-SI, 2018 WL 3069285 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018) (upholding damages verdict despite lack of proof of actual damages, where plaintiff had prevailed on claims of defamation per se). Neither of these cases involved news media publication of the allegedly defamatory material, nor did any of the authority Plaintiff cited in this connection construe the retraction statute.

The retraction statute expressly applies to “any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a daily or weekly news publication,” providing that “plaintiff shall only recover special damages unless a correction is demanded and is not published or broadcast,” and does not distinguish or exempt claims of defamation per se....

[....]

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the retraction statute is inapplicable because it violates Virginia’s public policy by “impos[ing] an added statutory requirement in defamation cases that has never been adopted by the Virginia General Assembly.” (Opp. at 8.) Plaintiff offers nothing more to support this assertion, and does not even specify the public policy that he believes would be violated by the application of California law. A mere difference between the respective defamation laws of Virginia and California “does not, ipso facto, justify refusal to adhere to comity principles.”

And thus, the court finds that Nunes failed to follow California defamation law and first demand a retraction. That means he can only plead special damages. "Special damages" are, basically "actual" damages -- a direct monetary loss that the plaintiff can attribute to the defendant's actions. And, guess what? Steven Biss's lawsuits didn't quite have that (because there were no actual damages):

Plaintiff’s AC fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements for special damages established by Rule 9(g). Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on December 3, 2019, made no mention of special damages at all.... CNN moved to dismiss the Complaint on substantially the same grounds as those presented in this Motion, thus alerting Plaintiff to CNN’s arguments and to a potentially critical deficiency in the Complaint. (See docket entry no. 15.) Thereafter, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to claim he has “suffered presumed damages and actual damages, including, but not limited to, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses, in the sum of $435,000,000, or such greater amount as is determined by the Jury.”

While the AC uses the phrase “special damages,” refers to “out of pocket expenses,” and includes a dollar amount that encompasses the entire array of damages claims, it provides no further indication of the basis or quantum of any special, or economic, element of his damages claim. A general “monetary demand stated in round numbers is generally not considered to reflect the specific damages required of special damages.” Marino v. Jonke, No. 11 CV 430 VB, 2012 WL 1871623, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012). Nor do such general allegations explain what the damages comprise or how they are calculated, denying both Defendant and the Court information as to the substance of the complaint. See Barrett v. U.S. Banknote Corp., No. 91 CIV. 7420 (RPP), 1992 WL 232055, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 1992) (holding that special damages allegation that proffered neither a specific damages figure nor a method of computing the damages was insufficient). In short, “[d]amage claims of this generality do not constitute adequate pleading of special damages[,]” id., and “without an allegation of special damages, the [AC] does not allege a legally sufficient cause of action [for defamation] under California law.” King v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 4963 (TPG), 1998 WL 665141, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 1998) (dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation claims where he failed to both comply with the California retraction statute and allege special damages in the complaint).

Oops.

And, then, of course, there was the utter nonsense of the "conspiracy" claim. Nunes' complaint basically tried to argue that CNN was out to get him, and that's not how any of this works.

Finally, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims must also be dismissed because the AC fails to plead facts sufficient to allege plausibly that CNN engaged in a conspiracy to defame and injure Nunes. Under California law, conspiracy “[s]tanding alone [ ] does no harm and engenders no tort liability.” Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 869 P.2d 454, 457 (Cal. 1994). A conspiracy “must be activated by the commission of an actual tort,” and a “bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, in defamation cases, “plaintiffs have not been allowed to circumvent the statutory limitation[s],” such as those imposed by the retraction statute, by “proceeding on a theory other than defamation.” Fellows v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 721 P.2d 97, 101 (Cal. 1986). In light of Plaintiff’s failure to plead a viable defamation claim, there is no underlying tort to support a viable claim for conspiracy here.

I'm not entirely sure why CNN didn't also move to make use of California's anti-SLAPP law, since they were able to get California's defamation law applied to the case -- because that might have put Nunes in the position of having to pay for CNN's legal fees. But, either way, it's another big (but totally expected) loss for Nunes in his SLAPP crusade.

And... we still don't know who's paying for all of these lawsuits.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, california, defamation, devin nunes, free speech, new york, slapp, steven biss, virginia
Companies: cnn