From Wednesday's decision in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach [Rabbi Shmuley], decided by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein:

Plaintiff's four subpoenas to the AI Providers and its Seventh RFP seek the same information, specifically Defendant's communications with AI platforms since December 3, 2024, concerning various categories of subjects:

1. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to the Fontainebleau Hotel.
2. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to this litigation.
3. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to counsel for Plaintiff.
4. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to any employee, owner, or representative of the Fontainebleau Hotel.
5. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to any Court Order entered during this litigation.
6. All of Defendant's AI Communications with AI since December 3, 2024, concerning or relating to Judge K. Michael Moore or the undersigned.

In addition, to these six categories, Plaintiff seeks one more category of documents in the subpoenas to the AI providers (but not in the Seventh RFP), consisting of:

7. All of Defendant's AI Communications regarding Requests 1 through [6] that have, since their creation, been deleted….

Plaintiff [argued] that Defendant's AI communications may reveal the extent of his alleged malice toward Plaintiff, the intentionality underlying his conduct, and evidence relevant to the determination of punitive damages, including whether an exception to Florida's statutory cap [on punitive damages] applies….

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged matters relevant to a party's claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. The Rule expressly recognizes that information within the permissible scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable…. The District Court's Order at ECF No. [261], which authorized the Parties to conduct "discovery limited to damages," also governs the scope of discovery at this juncture…. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the particular AI communications sought by Plaintiff bear a sufficient relationship to the damages issues remaining in this action….

The degree of reprehensibility, the defendant's intent, and the circumstances surrounding the wrongful conduct are … relevant to determining an appropriate punitive-damages award…. To the extent Defendant used AI platforms to generate, revise, or refine statements concerning Plaintiff, its counsel, or its representatives, those communications may reveal not merely the final content of Defendant's statements but also the purpose for which the statements were created, the instructions Defendant supplied, and the effects he sought to achieve. Such information may provide evidence of the intent underlying Defendant's conduct that cannot necessarily be discerned from the resulting public statements alone. The Court does not determine that those communications will establish malice or specific intent to harm; it determines only that they bear a sufficient relationship to those disputed damages issues to warrant discovery….

According[] to Defendant, his alleged hostility does not necessarily prove constitutional actual malice, and it therefore should not be considered when deciding whether punitive damages are appropriate. Constitutional actual malice in a defamation action concerns knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. By contrast, the reprehensibility inquiry and the specific-intent exception under section 768.73(1)(c) require consideration of the defendant's culpability and intent to harm the claimant. Evidence of hostility, planning, or deliberate efforts to inflict or amplify injury to Plaintiff may be relevant to those questions when sufficiently connected to the alleged wrongful conduct here.

Plaintiff seeks evidence not simply to establish that Defendant disliked the Hotel, but to determine whether Defendant deliberately engaged in conduct intended to cause injury and whether that intent bears on the reprehensibility and statutory treatment of the punitive damages sought. The Court therefore rejects Defendant's argument that because hostility does not necessarily prove constitutional actual malice, it should not be considered when deciding whether punitive damages are appropriate.

Nor does the fact that some requested communications postdate the original publications render them categorically undiscoverable. Subsequent statements and conduct may, depending on their content and context, provide circumstantial evidence of a defendant's earlier intent or reveal a continuing course of conduct relevant to the injury. The temporal relationship between a communication and the alleged injury may affect its probative value, but it does not create an absolute bar to discovery….

The Court does not hold that every subsequent statement by Defendant may support an award of punitive damages. The Supreme Court has cautioned that punitive damages may not be used to punish a defendant for unrelated or dissimilar conduct merely because that conduct reflects poorly on the defendant's character. But the permissible scope of discovery is broader than the scope of evidence that may be ultimately admitted at trial. The present inquiry is whether the requested information is relevant and proportional under Rule 26(b)(1) to the damages issues remaining in this case.

Here, Plaintiff alleges a continuing course of conduct directed toward the Hotel, its personnel, and its representatives, including conduct involving AI-generated content. Plaintiff has also identified testimony from its damages expert concerning the alleged cumulative effect of Defendant's continuing online activity on the Hotel's reputation and business. As such, Defendant's communications with AI platforms concerning the Hotel and the Hotel's employees, owners, or representatives, including Plaintiff's counsel, may reveal information relevant to Defendant's alleged intent to harm Plaintiff, the nature and persistence of the challenged conduct, and the extent to which that conduct allegedly amplified Plaintiff's injuries. The Court therefore concludes that Request Nos. 1 (seeking AI communications about the Hotel), 3 (seeking AI communications about Plaintiff's counsel), and 4 (seeking AI communications about any employee, owner, or representative of the Hotel) in the subpoenas to the AI providers and the Seventh RFP fall within the scope of damages discovery authorized by the District Court….

Further, to the extent Request No. 7 in the subpoenas to the AI providers … seeks Defendant's AI communications regarding Requests Nos. 1 through [6] that have been deleted since their creation, the Court concludes that this Request is authorized by the District Court's Order only to the extent it seeks any deleted AI communications regarding Request Nos. 1, 3, and 4….

But the court rejected the other requests, which dealt with AI communications "concerning or relating to this litigation" (2), "concerning or relating to any Court Order entered during this litigation" (5), and "concerning or relating to Judge K. Michael Moore or the [Magistrate Judge]" (6):

Starting with Request No. 2 in the subpoenas and the Seventh RFP, it seeks all AI communications concerning or relating to "this litigation." That formulation is exceptionally broad. It encompasses potentially every AI exchange on matters having no meaningful connection to the amount of damages or Defendant's alleged intent to harm Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not established that every communication relating to this litigation bears on an issue remaining for the damages trial….

Turning to Request No. 5 in the subpoenas and the Seventh RFP, it seeks all AI communications concerning or relating to any Court Order entered during this litigation. Such communications may include Defendant's attempts to understand an Order, research its consequences, consider procedural options, or evaluate the litigation. The fact that Defendant may have expressed disagreement with, frustration about, or hostility toward a Court Order does not, without a sufficient connection to the alleged injury, make the communication relevant to Plaintiff's damages. Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant's reactions to Court Orders reflect the depth of his hostility and the reprehensibility of his conduct, that theory is too attenuated to justify discovery of every AI exchange concerning every Order entered in this case. The Court therefore finds that Request No. 5 exceeds the permissible scope of damages discovery.

Finally, Request No. 6 in the subpoenas and the Seventh RFP seeks all AI communications concerning or relating to District Judge K. Michael Moore or the undersigned Magistrate Judge. The Court likewise finds that Defendant's private communications with AI platforms concerning judicial officers, without more, do not bear a sufficient relationship to the damages Plaintiff seeks for the alleged harm to the Hotel. The discovery inquiry is not whether Defendant has criticized the judiciary; it is whether the requested information is relevant and proportional to the damages issues remaining in this action. A request encompassing every AI communication about the judges presiding over this litigation exceeds that scope. The Court thus finds that Request No. 6 exceeds the permissible scope of damages discovery.

The Court recognizes Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's criticism of the judicial process may demonstrate the persistence of his alleged hostility. But the Supreme Court has cautioned against using dissimilar conduct as a basis for punishing a defendant for being an objectionable person rather than for the conduct that injured the plaintiff….

And the court rejected the argument that the communications were categorically "protected work product":

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A) generally protects "documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative." The doctrine is designed to protect the adversarial process by preserving the privacy necessary for litigation preparation….

The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of Rule 26(b)(3)(A) confirms that work-product protection is not limited to materials prepared by counsel but extends to materials prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation….

When determining whether a document is protected under the work-product doctrine, "litigation need not necessarily be imminent … as long as the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in possible litigation." The document must have been "created principally or exclusively to assist in anticipated or ongoing litigation." "Just because a document may have been used later to assist in litigation … does not mean it was principally prepared for such purpose." …

Here, communications independently generated by Defendant to create, revise, or disseminate content concerning the Hotel, its personnel, or Plaintiff's counsel are not transformed into attorney work product merely because Defendant is a litigant or because the resulting content may bear on this action. To the extent such communications were created for the purpose of producing public-facing statements or pursuing Defendant's independent activities, rather than preparing the defense of this litigation, they ordinarily would not satisfy Rule 26(b)(3)(A). The Court therefore rejects Defendant's blanket work-product objection to Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7.

However, that conclusion does not foreclose a properly supported, document-specific claim of protection. If a particular communication was prepared because of this litigation and otherwise satisfies Rule 26(b)(3), Defendant may assert the protection in accordance with the Federal Rules. Defendant must, however, identify the withheld material and describe the nature of the asserted protection sufficiently to permit Plaintiff to assess the claim without revealing the protected information itself….

[I]f Plaintiff serves the subpoenas on the AI providers and requires them to produce the document directly to Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant will be deprived of the opportunity to determine whether there are any work-product protected documents within the production that should otherwise be withheld and identified on a privilege log. For that reason, the Parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer to discuss the logistics of how the AI providers, to the extent they have responsive materials, will be instructed to produce such materials….

Some backstory on the lawsuit from an earlier post, Magistrate Judge Recommends Massive Sanctions on Rabbi Shmuley Boteach for Violating Court Order in Anti-Semitism Lawsuit (District Judge K. Michael Moore had since adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report):

This case arises from an incident that occurred at the Fontainebleau Florida Hotel …. Plaintiff alleges that the following events occurred:

After more than an hour of loitering, Defendant Boteach engaged in an uneventful conversation with a registered guest of the Hotel and the two parted ways. More than an hour later (after midnight on Sunday, December 2, 2024), Defendant Boteach engaged in a verbal altercation with the same registered guest wherein the guest and Defendant Boteach exchanged hateful words at each other.

The guest used language that was heinous and accused Defendant Boteach of being a "baby killer" and other words that are easily interpreted as antisemitic. Defendant Boteach, in turn, hurled anti-Islamic words at the registered guest and repeatedly shouted, "Allahu Akbar? Are you going to blow yourself up or something? … he uses the expressions of, like, suicide bombers." Within hours, Defendant Boteach posted an edited video of the exchange on Instagram and began his campaign of threats against the Hotel, its ownership, its outside lawyer, and its employees—who had nothing to do with the altercation except that Hotel security de-escalated and ended it.

Plaintiff alleges that following the altercation, the Defendant, who the FAC [First Amendment Complaint] describes as a "social media influencer and rabbi" with "hundreds of thousands of social media followers[,]" went on a "multi-week assault on the [Hotel], its personnel, and representatives—creating AI videos purporting to show them celebrating antisemitism, comparing them to Nazi collaborators, falsely accusing them of banning Jews from the property, and fabricating statements that they embraced a policy of Judenrein, i.e., the extermination of six million Jews." The FAC alleges that Defendant falsely stated that he was denied entry to the Hotel because he is "too Jewish," that the Hotel refused to cooperate with law enforcement's investigation of the incident, and that he "was trespassed from the Hotel for being 'too Jewish[.]'"

Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant Boteach published a statement that, in part, called for guests 'who have booked' at the Hotel to 'cancel your reservations'" and to "'be smart and cancel and give your hard-earned money to a hotel that doesn't abide antisemites.'" Moreover, Plaintiff alleges:

At all hours of the day and night, Defendant Boteach proceeded to harass the Hotel and its representatives. For example, he posted a "headshot" photograph of the head of the Hotel's outside counsel with the words "DIGITALLY DECAPITATED" and later, at 3:49 am, menacingly threatened that counsel was "about to have a really interesting Shabbat" when he arrived at his synagogue, which Defendant Boteach identified by name and location. Defendant Boteach directly contacted counsel's clergy and posted harassing images of them.

That post also explains the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the defendant had repeatedly and willfully violated a court order, and therefore ought to have default judgment entered against him as to liability (with further proceedings to take place as to damages).

Sean Alexander Burstyn (Burstyn Law PLLC), Christopher Ara Ajizian (Christopher Ajizian P.A.) and Todd Rapp Friedman represent the hotel.

The post Some Communications by Rabbi Shmuley with AI Platforms May Be Discovered in Order to Determine Punitive Damages appeared first on Reason Magazine.

From Judge Kenneth Bell (W.D.N.C.) today in Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. v. Elsevier Ltd Inc.:

In this action, now spanning over four and a half years and nearly 400 docket entries, Plaintiff Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. ("GPS") contends that its air purifier business was greatly harmed by a defamatory article published in Building and Environment ("BAE"), a scientific journal owned by Defendant Elsevier …. Specifically, GPS alleges that several critiques of its "bipolar ionization" technology were false and Elsevier's advertisement of BAE's articles as "peer reviewed" violated the Lanham Act….

The law provides strong protection for scientific inquiry and debate on matters of public concern. This includes the allegedly defamatory article, which was published in March 2021 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when air purification technologies were under intense scrutiny.

Because the Court finds that GPS was a limited purpose public figure with respect to the safety and efficacy of its bipolar ionization technology and cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that Elsevier published the article with "actual malice," Elsevier is entitled to summary judgment on GPS's defamation claim. Similarly, a reasonable jury could not find that Elsevier is liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act, where there is insufficient evidence that a substantial portion of the intended audience would be misled by the truthful statements that the article was "peer reviewed" or that an Elsevier advertisement was a proximate cause of GPS's claimed diminution in its corporate value….

[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to GPS, the conduct alleged here—while in several respects falling well short of being fabricated or fraudulent data—might possibly justify limiting the full, dispositive First Amendment protection for scientific opinion urged by Elsevier. However, the Court need not (and will not) reach a definitive conclusion on the scope of the Article's "scientific opinion" protection because, as discussed below, GPS has not shown evidence of actual malice sufficient to support its defamation claim, which independently resolves GPS's defamation claim in Elsevier's favor….

There's a lot more, which you can read here; and there's something at the end about public access to court records:

As explained by the Court at the hearing on these motions and in its earlier order on the Parties' various motions to seal, the Parties have excessively filed memoranda, documents, and other exhibits under seal in violation of the strict legal principles applicable to publicly filed motions, in particular dispositive motions at summary judgment (including, incredibly, press releases and other obviously public documents).

Under the governing First Amendment standard, a "denial of access" to publicly filed documents "must be necessitated by a compelling … interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Accordingly, a party moving to seal documents filed in support of summary judgment in a civil case bears a heavy burden. Having reviewed the Parties' summary judgment submissions, the Court finds that all memoranda and exhibits filed under seal should be refiled in unredacted form and linked to the original filed sealed exhibit on the schedule described below. The Court will allow the Parties a short period of time to file very limited and narrowly tailored requests to maintain the sealing or partial sealing of specific filings and exhibits, other than the Parties' memoranda of law and any exhibit specifically cited in this order….

The Parties are directed to refile—on or before October 26, 2026—an unredacted copy of any memoranda in support of or in opposition to the Parties' Summary Judgment motions and any exhibit specifically cited in this Order that were filed under seal. All refiled documents must be linked to the originally sealed filing. All remaining sealed exhibits filed in connection with the Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment must be similarly refiled and linked on or before 14 days from the date of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Parties may file under seal very limited and narrowly tailored requests to maintain the sealing of any of the remaining sealed exhibits on or before 10 days after the date of this Order ….

The post No Liability for Scientific Publisher (Elsevier) in Defamation Lawsuit by Air Purifier Company appeared first on Reason Magazine.

That's part of libel plaintiff's argument(filed last week) for subpoenaing defendant's AI queries in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach; the defendant is popularly known as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. From the introduction:

The Court asked whether Botach's communications with AI platforms fall within the scope of "damages" discovery permitted by ECF No. 261, and specifically how those materials relate to malice and the statutory cap on punitive damages. Precedent from the United States Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit, as well as Florida law, answers that question directly.

Under Fla. Stat. § 768.73(1)(c), the cap on punitive damages lifts entirely where the fact finder determines that "the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant" at the time of the injury. As discussed below, legions of cases from trial courts to the Supreme Court hold that post-defamation conduct is probative of whether defamatory statements were made with intent to harm. Specific intent is therefore not background color to the damages trial or damages discovery. Discovery into Botach's intent to harm Plaintiff is damages discovery, and the AI materials are the most direct evidence of that intent.

Botach did not merely publish an errant falsehood on a blog or make a heated statement in a debate. He methodically engineered his attacks—drafting, refining, and iterating for painful effect through the most potent technologies known to humankind. The prompts and chats are his mental state reduced to writing, and they are probative of damages.

And from the defendant's response:

The Court should sustain the objections to the proposed AI-provider subpoenas as drafted and apply the same limits to the overlapping Seventh Request for Production. The issue is whether these demands fall within the scope of "discovery limited to damages." The unresolved punitive amount permits discovery concerning punishment for the adjudicated wrong, not an unrestricted inquiry into Defendant's research or litigation conduct.

The amended complaint already alleges knowing falsity, deliberate fabrication, repeated publication, financial motive, and specific intent to harm. Plaintiff did not pursue AI discovery before the general discovery cutoff. But under the guise of "discovery limited to damages," Plaintiff seeks every responsive AI exchange concerning this litigation, the Hotel, Plaintiff's lawyers, every court order, and the judges. It reaches accounts associated with an expansively defined "Botach," without limiting production to his queries or material used in the actionable publications. The Court should enforce the reopening order before requiring any production and independently preserve substantiated work-product objections.

For more backstory on the case, an excerpt from the long Report and Recommendation issued July 29 by Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach:

This action arises from an encounter between Defendant and then-hotel guest Faiz Akbar … in the lobby of Plaintiff's hotel in December 2024. The Parties sharply dispute the nature of the encounter, who initiated or escalated it, and whether Plaintiff responded appropriately to Defendant's subsequent complaints.

Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant published false statements concerning the incident and Plaintiff's response to it, including statements that Plaintiff discriminated against Defendant because he is Jewish, knowingly permitted an antisemitic assault to occur on its premises, removed Defendant rather than the alleged aggressor, and refused to cooperate with law enforcement. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for defamation and tortious interference with business relationships.

Defendant filed a Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint asserting claims against Plaintiff and naming Jeffrey Soffer … and Akbar as Third-Party Defendants. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges, among other things, that he was subjected to an antisemitic verbal attack at the hotel, that Plaintiff failed to protect him or adequately cooperate with the ensuing investigation, and that Plaintiff thereafter excluded him from its properties. Defendant asserted claims under federal civil-rights statutes and a claim for tortious interference with business relationships….

The merits of the Parties' competing claims are not directly before the Court in the Motion for Sanctions. Instead, the dispute concerns Defendant's conduct during the litigation, the meaning and scope of the District Court's February 20, 2026 Order …, and whether Defendant's subsequent social-media activity violated that Order in a manner warranting sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) or the Court's inherent authority….

On March 11, 2025, Defendant served a subpoena on the Miami Beach Police Department seeking video footage of the underlying incident that Plaintiff previously provided to the department. The Miami Beach Police Department produced responsive surveillance footage to Defendant's counsel on March 26, 2025, and counsel thereafter transmitted that footage to Defendant. On April 2, 2025, before the entry of a protective order, Defendant posted an excerpt of the surveillance footage to his public Instagram account, which had more than 90,000 followers. On April 7, 2025, the Parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated protective order governing discovery in this action. The Court entered the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order on April 9, 2025.

The Protective Order provides that material produced by a nonparty is automatically treated as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" for thirty days following production without the need for an affirmative designation by a party. The Protective Order further prohibits the use of discovery material for any purpose unrelated to this litigation, including any public, commercial, business, or personal purpose. The Protective Order restricts access to material designated as "Highly Confidential" or "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" to specified persons and does not permit unrestricted public dissemination of such material….

On April 10, 2025, one day after entry of the Protective Order, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage to his social-media accounts. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff formally designated the materials produced by the Miami Beach Police Department as "Highly Confidential," and Plaintiff's counsel communicated that designation to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel then informed Defendant of the designation, after which Defendant removed the footage. Defendant contemporaneously published a social-media post acknowledging that he was "required under the rules to remove the video."

Notwithstanding his knowledge of the Protective Order and Plaintiff's confidentiality designation, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage on September 17, 2025…. Although Plaintiff requested severe evidentiary and litigation-ending sanctions [over this], the undersigned concluded that those sanctions were not then supported by the record because a lesser sanction had not previously been imposed for the violation. The undersigned instead awarded Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees and costs attributable to the sanctions motion and expressly admonished Defendant that the Protective Order was not optional. The undersigned further warned Defendant that any future violation of the Protective Order would be treated with the utmost seriousness, including case-dispositive sanctions.

After further proceedings concerning the amount of the award, the Court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff $15,000.00 no later than April 26, 2026….

Separate from the Protective Order dispute, the District Court addressed Defendant's social-media activity in connection with pretrial scheduling and discovery matters. On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to take Defendant's deposition and represented that Defendant had repeatedly scheduled and cancelled depositions based on asserted physical limitations while simultaneously publishing social-media content showing him engaged in activities including ice skating, kayaking, and bicycling. The District Court granted Plaintiff additional time to take Defendant's deposition and stated that it was "deeply disturbed by this trend." The District Court cautioned Defendant that sanctions, "potentially including the striking of Defendant's pleadings," would be imposed if the conduct continued….

[In a] February 20 Order, the District Court observed that the communications between the Parties had become "toxic," particularly in light of Defendant's online communications, and agreed with Plaintiff that the time had come for the matter to proceed toward resolution. The District Court stated that it was "deeply disturbed by Defendant's conduct," including his "continued social media attacks aimed at Plaintiff and its counsel" and his attempt to effect service at an address he knew belonged to Soffer's child. The District Court then expressly "DIRECT[ED] Defendant to cease such harassing conduct and social media references to Plaintiff and its counsel during the course of this litigation." …

In the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Defendant continued to publish social-media content referencing Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and this litigation almost immediately after entry of the February 20 Order. Plaintiff identifies multiple occasions between February 26 and May 28, 2026, on which Defendant allegedly violated the Order. [For more details, see the opinion, but here's one example. -EV] …

The May 24, 2026 social media publications constitute perhaps the most egregious violations of the February 20 Order. To recap, in one video, Defendant alleged that a member of his family was confronted and threatened in Jerusalem by an individual who invoked Plaintiff's counsel. Defendant specifically identified Plaintiff's counsel as the attorney representing the hotel in this action and asserted that this lawsuit was filed to "intimidate and silence him" after he publicly alleged that he had been threatened with murder in an antisemitic attack. Defendant further stated that it "remains unknown whether anyone connected to the ongoing litigation had prior knowledge of, encouraged, or otherwise played any role in the confrontation" and that he "has endured nearly two years of legal and public harassment by [Plaintiff's counsel] and the hotel in an effort to financially and personally destroy him after speaking out about the alleged antisemitic attack."

In the other May 24, 2026 post, Defendant referred to Plaintiff, Soffer, and Plaintiff's counsel, Burstyn, by name, and questioned whether Burstyn appeared in materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The post also referenced Burstyn's representation of another client, questioned Burstyn's role in events preceding the death of Virginia Giuffre, criticized Burstyn's representation of Plaintiff, and concluded with an assertion concerning public distrust of attorneys, stating that Plaintiff's counsel "is the reason that 84% of Americans believe that attorneys are scumbags."

These posts did not merely allude to Plaintiff—they expressly identified Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the upcoming trial. They therefore violated both components of the District Court's directive. They constituted social-media references to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, and they also plainly continued the very social-media attacks that prompted the District Court's intervention. These publications therefore fall squarely within the conduct the District Court sought to halt and cannot reasonably be characterized as compliance with the February 20 Order….

And the Magistrate Judge therefore recommended sanctions against the Defendant:

The totality of the record demonstrates that Defendant willfully chose to disregard a clear judicial command. It is undisputed that Defendant knew of the District Court's February 20 Order. Nevertheless, Defendant continued making prohibited social-media references over approximately three months.

The violations were not confined to a single publication or a single day. Instead, Defendant repeatedly returned to social media to discuss Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the pending litigation. That pattern is inconsistent with negligence or misunderstanding….

Further, Defendant knew the significance of an order, the requirement that he comply with an order, even if he disagreed with it, and the consequences for failing to follow an order. Not only has Defendant already been sanctioned for violating an order of this Court, but Defendant was also warned about the potential for graver consequences if he violates any other orders….

Turning to the issue of whether lesser sanctions would suffice, the record contains multiple warnings of escalating specificity. The District Court first warned Defendant on February 10, 2026 that continued misconduct could result in striking Defendant's pleadings. Then, on February 20, 2026, the District Court directed Defendant to cease social-media attacks and references to Plaintiff and its counsel. Less than one week later, the undersigned warned Defendant that Court Orders are not optional, that Defendant could not take matters into his own hands, and that future violations would be treated with the utmost seriousness, including the potential for Rule 37(b)(2)(A) sanctions. Those warnings did not produce compliance. Another admonition would repeat a measure the record has already shown to be ineffective with Defendant.

Further, the Court previously imposed a sanction in the form of a $15,000.00 fee award based on Defendant's knowing violation of the Protective Order. The violations of the February 20 Order followed that ruling and the accompanying admonition…. [T]he prior monetary sanction did not deter Defendant from again disregarding a pretrial directive….

At his deposition, Defendant admitted under oath that his social-media publications were intended to cause Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel to reconsider their conduct and litigation strategy. Consistent with that testimony, Defendant's May 24 and May 28 posts publicly accused Plaintiff of attempting to destroy him through this litigation, attacked Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel personally notwithstanding the Court's directive prohibiting such conduct, and attempted to rally public opinion by requesting "your support" in his trial "Against 'that Hotel' in Miami" where he will "absolutely defeat the antisemitism-deniers."

Defendant therefore used repeated violations of the Court's Order as an extrajudicial litigation tactic designed to influence whether, and under what conditions, Plaintiff continued to prosecute its claims against him. That objective directly implicates the integrity of the judicial process. The pattern of Defendant's repeated, willful violations of the February 20 Order when coupled with his stated intention behind his social-media posts and his history of sanctions and admonitions demonstrate that lesser sanctions will not suffice.

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that striking Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, dismissing his Counterclaim with prejudice, and entering default judgment as to liability on Plaintiff's well-pleaded claims constitute appropriately tailored remedies that address the institutional harm caused by Defendant's abuse of the judicial process. {This recommendation is not based upon any determination that Defendant's affirmative defenses or Counterclaim lack substantive merit. Rather, it is based upon Defendant's willful violation of this Court's Order, his deliberate use of those violations as a litigation tactic, and the demonstrated inadequacy of lesser sanctions to secure compliance or preserve the integrity of these proceedings.}

With that said, the recommendation of entry of default judgment would not, by itself, establish the amount of Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff would remain obligated to establish any unliquidated damages through appropriate evidence and further proceedings and Defendant would be able to defend against such damages claims….

[T]he Court [also] finds it appropriate to award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred as a result of litigating the Motion for Sanctions. The amount should be determined through a separate fee submission with Plaintiff bearing the burden to establish the reasonableness of its counsel's hourly rate along with the reasonableness of the requested fees….

The post "The AI Data Will Provide an Unrivaled View into the Mind of a Defendant …" appeared first on Reason Magazine.

So reports the N.Y. Times (Mark Arsenault) yesterday, discussing former MIT cellular biology professor David Sabatini's victory on the defamation claim (and defendant's loss on her harassment and retaliation counterclaim). More details:

[Sabatini] was forced out of his lab in 2021 after an internal Whitehead [Institute] investigation concluded he had a past sexual relationship with a younger and less experienced colleague, Kristin Knouse, over whom he had a career-influencing role. The investigation also found that his lab had maintained a sexualized atmosphere. Dr. Knouse said that the relationship was coerced.

But Dr. Sabatini denied his lab had an improper atmosphere. He maintained that his relationship with Dr. Knouse had been consensual and that Dr. Knouse had schemed to get him fired and disgraced after he became interested in another woman….

After he was pushed out of M.I.T. and the Whitehead, he had talks with New York University about a job. But N.Y.U. staff members and students protested in the streets against his hiring in 2022, and the university did not hire him.

In 2023, he was hired by the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, in Prague, and later opened a Boston-area branch of that institute….

According to the Boston Globe (Madyline Swearing, Bryan Hecht & Tonya Alanez), "In 2023, New York hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman and an anonymous donor pledged $25 million over five years to help Sabatini get back into science." The Globe also reports that the jury consisted of "seven women and six men," for whatever that's worth.

Here's an excerpt of what Sabatini alleged (quoting a Massachusetts appellate decision in the case, later reversed as to Knouse's counterclaim by the Massachusetts high court):

Sabatini and Knouse met in 2012. At the time, Sabatini was a tenured member of the department of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and ran his own laboratory at Whitehead, a research institute affiliated with MIT that receives funding from private resources such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and public resources such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). {As pertinent here, Whitehead and HHMI have a relationship whereby HHMI provides funding for, and in some instances employs, individuals working at Whitehead. At all relevant times, both Whitehead and HHMI employed Sabatini. In addition, NIH provided grants that funded Sabatini's research at Whitehead.}

Knouse was enrolled in an inter-institutional M.D./Ph.D. program at Harvard and MIT, where Sabatini was one of her instructors and served on her thesis committee. While Knouse was a doctoral student, she and Sabatini sometimes socialized.

Then, in 2018, Knouse started a fellowship at Whitehead, and she and Sabatini began a sexual relationship. While the relationship ended in 2019, Knouse sent text messages to Sabatini in January 2020 seeking to rekindle their relationship. Sabatini responded, asking Knouse to stop and stating that he wanted peace and needed space to figure things out.

In early 2020 through the fall of 2020, Knouse began telling colleagues, both at Whitehead and MIT, that Sabatini had sexually harassed her. In October 2020, Knouse reported the alleged sexual harassment to Lehmann. Around that time, Whitehead hired a consultant to conduct a diversity survey at Whitehead. During the survey, some Whitehead employees reported concerns about Sabatini. In response, Whitehead hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP (HAS) to investigate the culture within Sabatini's laboratory. The HAS investigators spoke with Knouse and other members of the Whitehead community. In interviews with the HAS investigators, Knouse repeated her allegations that Sabatini had sexually harassed her.

On August 13, 2021, HAS sent a report to Whitehead finding that Sabatini had committed sexual harassment. Whitehead forwarded the report to MIT and HHMI. On August 19, Whitehead provided Sabatini with a copy of the report. On August 20, Sabatini resigned after learning that Whitehead was about to terminate his employment. {Before Sabatini resigned, his coemployer at Whitehead, HHMI, terminated his employment. MIT placed Sabatini on leave.}

And here's what Knouse alleged (quoting the Massachusetts high court decision); the jury verdict suggests that the jury largely believed Sabatini's story rather than Knouse's:

Sabatini was a laboratory director at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (Whitehead) and a tenured professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2012 when he met Knouse, then a graduate student at Harvard University and MIT. Sabatini was one of Knouse's instructors at MIT and served on her dissertation committee.

During a discussion in 2016 concerning whether Sabatini would endorse Knouse's application for an upcoming fellowship at Whitehead, Sabatini expressed concern that Knouse took herself too seriously and asked Knouse whether she ever had "fun," "fuck[ed] around," or had sex. Knouse responded that she did have fun and quickly left the conversation. Subsequently, Sabatini recommended Knouse for the fellowship and supported her grant application, both of which she secured.

Knouse joined Whitehead as a fellow in 2018. That year, Knouse and Sabatini began a sexual relationship that ended in 2019; thereafter, Sabatini continued to make sexualized comments to her. Knouse asserts that she struggled under this dynamic. Sabatini, whose laboratory was next to Knouse's, was the director of the Whitehead fellows program, and he served as a mentor and reviewer of her work. Knouse feared the potential consequences that losing an influential mentor would have on her career and believed she could not terminate the relationship without professional repercussions. She "began to withdraw from the scientific community" and "experience[d] debilitating feelings of entrapment and hopelessness."

Around this period, the results of a 2020 culture survey of Whitehead "suggested that Sabatini either personally engaged in sexually explicit and inappropriate discussions or fostered an environment that tolerated—or promoted—such inappropriate discussions and that he threatened those who might report his conduct." The survey results "amplified complaints" raised by two women, who had trained in Sabatini's laboratory, and by Knouse, who contemporaneously disclosed to the director that she had felt harassed during her fellowship but, fearing retaliation, did not provide any further details.

In response, Whitehead hired an independent legal team to investigate. The investigators determined, inter alia, that Sabatini had "engaged in and otherwise tolerated sexist and sexualized work discussions with his lab," and that engaging in such discussions "was an implicit part of succeeding in" Sabatini's laboratory. They also concluded that there was a "culture of fear and retaliation" within the laboratory. They reported that Sabatini had "engag[ed] in sexual relations with a Whitehead Fellow" and violated several Whitehead policies, including its sexual harassment policy.

Sabatini resigned from his Whitehead position. MIT announced that it was placing Sabatini on leave to perform its own investigation.

Sabatini's claims against Whitehead had earlier been dismissed (see, e.g., this decision).

Lisa Arrowood, Shayne Kinsella, and Sarah Sousa (Arrowood LLP) represent Sabatini.

The post $6M Verdict in #TheyLied Defamation Lawsuit Brought Over Sexual Harassment Allegations appeared first on Reason Magazine.

From Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, decided yesterday by Judges Guido Calabresi, William J. Nardini, and Eunice C. Lee:

Nunes brought a single claim for defamation under New York law based on (as relevant here) a statement made by Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show ("TRMS") on MSNBC (owned by NBCUniversal), for which Cory Gnazzo served as the executive producer.

In December 2019, Nunes, who was then a congressman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("HPSCI"), received something known as the "Derkach Package," from Andrii Derkach—a Russian agent linked to Russian efforts to influence the U.S. presidential election in 2020. The Derkach package was the subject of public discussion over a long period of time, including in a declassified Intelligence Committee Assessment that was released on March 16, 2021.

Two days after that release, on March 18, 2021, Maddow reported on the Derkach package incident, saying on TRMS that Nunes "refused to hand it over to the FBI, which is what you should do if you get something from somebody that is sanctioned by the U.S. government as a Russian agent." Nunes provided the court with evidence that Maddow's statement (the "Statement") was false. More specifically, a former staff member from the HPSCI testified in a deposition that the package, addressed to Nunes, was received by committee staff, placed in a secure location, and turned over to the FBI about two days after its arrival.

The court held that Nunes hadn't introduced enough evidence that Maddow spoke with "actual malice," which means knowing the statement was false or likely false:

[T]he undisputed evidence showed that Maddow and Gnazzo relied on the earlier-published Politico article and that such reliance cannot support a finding of actual malice. The Politico article stated that the Derkach packets had been sent to four people: Nunes, Senators Graham and Grassley, and then-White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney. According to the article, "Graham and Grassley denied having received the material, and Mulvaney and Nunes declined repeated requests for comment. One person familiar with the matter said the information was not turned over to the FBI."

Nunes argues that the Politico reporting does not support Maddow's statement that Nunes "has refused to hand [the Derkach Package] over to the FBI." But that is a natural reading of the Politico article. The dictionary definition of "refuse" cited by Nunes includes this meaning: "to show or express an unwillingness to do or comply with." According to Nunes, this definition shows that a person can "refuse" to do something only if he is "unwilling[ ] to … comply with" a request that he do so, and there was nothing in the Politico article to indicate that he had received any such request. But that is only one possible scenario covered by those words.

Nunes overlooks the other part of the definition that he himself quotes: that a person can be said to have "refused" to do something if he has "show[n] an unwillingness to do" it. Here, the Politico article clearly indicates that Graham, Grassley, Mulvaney and Nunes were all sent the material in question, and none of them gave it to the FBI. A fair paraphrase of this reporting, that Nunes got the Derkach Package but did not turn it over to the FBI, is that he was not willing (i.e., he refused) to give it to the FBI. Of course, the Statement did not parrot the Politico article word for word. But "[l]iteral accuracy is not a prerequisite: if we are to enjoy the blessings of a robust and unintimidated press, we must provide immunity from defamation suits where the journalist believes, reasonably and in good faith, that his report accurately conveys the charges made."

Maddow and Gnazzo's undisputed reliance upon the Politico article defeats Nunes' defamation claim. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court held that a defendant's reliance on a responsible source negates a finding of "the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice." "Similarly, this Court has held that where reporters' false statements in an article were based on reliable sources, the defendant could hardly be accused of gross negligence, much less actual malice."

Nunes provided no evidence at the summary judgment stage that provided any basis for a reasonable inference that Maddow or Gnazzo should have regarded the Politico article as unreliable. We therefore agree with the district court's holding that Nunes failed to present evidence that NBCUniversal or its employees acted with actual malice sufficient to defeat summary judgment….

Elizabeth A. McNamara and Jeremy Chase (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) represent defendant.

The post Devin Nunes Loses Libel Suit Based on Rachel Maddow Show Statements appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In mid-August, The New York Times lost a defamation lawsuit in Alabama. It’s the first such case the paper has lost in more than half a century. Back in 2023, the Times reported that a University of Alabama basketball player named Kai Spears was at the scene of a fatal shooting—information that turned out to be false, and based on a single anonymous source. A jury found the paper liable for damages to the tune of $9.25 million. Ryan Phillips, the only reporter to attend the duration of the defamation trial, describes the experience:

Chief among the post-publication issues was the Times‘ reluctance to issue a correction or retraction when it became immediately clear that Witz’s anonymous source had been wrong in their assertion that Spears was in Miller’s car during the shooting.

The jury heard lengthy testimony about how the newspaper published “updates” in the form of “Editor’s Notes” to the online story to reflect each new denial coming from the University of Alabama, UA Director of Athletics Greg Byrne, Spears’ father, and then the Alabama walk-on himself in an Instagram post.

Apart from the updates, which the Times argued were tantamount to a correction when applying Alabama law to the evidence, the story remained unchanged until an official correction was eventually published by The New York Times on June 3, 2023.