Conti v. Doe

• Decision Date: 22 April 2021
• Docket Number: 17-CV-9268 (VEC)
• Citation: 535 F.Supp.3d 257
• Parties: Dr. Paul M. CONTI, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. John DOE, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

535 F.Supp.3d 257

Dr. Paul M. CONTI, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

v.John DOE, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

17-CV-9268 (VEC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed April 22, 2021

George William Allison Bartholomew, Emmet, Marvin & Martin LLP, Peter B. Schalk, Judd Burstein, Judd Burstein, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant.

OPINION

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:

John Doe and Paul Conti are the players in a patient-psychiatrist relationship that imploded dramatically. The patient, Doe, responded to the termination of the relationship with a series of insulting and profane messages to his former psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Conti. Dr. Conti responded, in turn, with a lawsuit for defamation based on the messages.¹ Am. Compl., Dkt. 31. Doe counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty. Answer, Dkt. 59. Both parties have now moved for summary judgment. Dkts. 232, 246. For the following reasons, both motions for summary judgment are DENIED.

BACKGROUND²

Dr. Conti, a psychiatrist, began treating John Doe in May 2016 for drug addiction and erratic, threatening, and destructive behavior. See Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 1, 5-12. Doe has a history of psychiatric conditions, including depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder

, borderline personality disorder, and pathological gambling. Id. ¶¶ 6-10, 15-18. Doe is also addicted to Xanax. Id. ¶ 11, 18. In June 2016, at Dr. Conti's urging, Doe moved from New York to Portland, Oregon to start in person treatment with Dr. Conti and other members of Dr. Conti's practice, Pacific Premier Group ("PPG"), including counselor Mark Schorr and family therapist Sonali Patel. Id. ¶¶ 3, 13-14.

Over the course of Doe's treatment, Dr. Conti prescribed to Doe Librium

and Xanax, in an attempt to wean Doe off of Xanax. Id. ¶ 38. Doe supplemented his prescribed Xanax with Xanax obtained from unknown sources and used more Xanax than Dr. Conti prescribed. Pl. Counter 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 118. Doe also repeatedly missed appointments with Dr. Conti, failed to communicate with PPG staff, and ultimately moved to Los Angeles without consulting Dr. Conti. Id. ¶¶ 115, 117.

On April 6, 2017, Dr. Conti terminated his treatment of Doe; Dr. Conti explained to Doe and his parents, James and Jane Doe ("the Does"), that his "primary reason for discontinuing care" was that "the treatment of the moment, which consists of medication transition, cannot be conducted safely." Ex. D. Dr. Conti also noted that he could not continue to treat Doe because Doe was continuing to abuse drugs, refusing to comply with Dr. Conti's treatment program, and sending Dr. Conti hostile text messages.³ Id. Dr. Conti indicated that he was "happy to assist with transition to another physician, and/or to provide a list of detoxification and treatment facilities in Los Angeles or elsewhere in the country." Id.

Following Dr. Conti's termination of treatment, over the next eight months, Doe sent Dr. Conti a series of profane messages. See Exs. B-O. Doe included numerous third parties on his emails to Dr. Conti, including: his parents; Alan Dershowitz, an attorney on faculty at Harvard Law School; Dr. Michael Jenike, a psychiatrist who treated Doe before and after Dr. Conti treated Doe; Dr. Robin Lippert, a psychologist who treated Doe before and after Dr. Conti treated Doe; Dovi Meyer, Doe's assistant; various members of PPG; and Jeff Barry, Doe's friend and business associate. See id. In several of the emails, Doe accused Dr. Conti of, inter alia , abandoning him during both treatment and the titration process.⁴ See e.g., id. , Ex. B ("You're a fucking fraud that abandoned me in treatment ... your fraudulent mother fucming [sic ] ass was not there."); Ex. F ("You were never there ... You were no where [sic ] to be found ... You abandoned me when I could have gotten out.... You abandoned your patient when he got himself from 5 mgs to 1.5 mgs. And your [sic ] fucking right I freaked out, I didn't have a dr [sic ] and I beyond relapsed ... SHAME ON you for abandoning a vulnerable person in misery"); Ex. N ("Settle I will kill myself because of the titration you abandoned me on ... You could have backed out at any minute or time. Instead you abandoned me."); Ex. O ("You take away a persons [sic ] sense of self and abandon them during titration that's criminal.").

Doe also accused Dr. Conti of lying about his reasons for terminating his therapeutic relationship with Doe. Specifically, Doe stated that Dr. Conti terminated their relationship because Doe's parents had caught Dr. Conti engaging in misconduct, not because Doe failed to adhere to the titration regiment. See e.g. id. Ex. F ("the only reason you terminated treatment was because my parents caught you on your bullshit ... had my parents not seen your pure negligence you mother fucker I would probably be under the care of your incompetent ass."); Ex. H ("You got caugggt [sic ] MALPRACTICE ... you wrote the reason for ending treatment was I wasn't following the titration process, another fucking poor attempt of deflection ... the real reason was because [ ] you didn't want to continue treatment ... get your fucking story straight another poor attempt of deflection MALPRACTICE."); Ex. I ("WE all know with the greatest certainty you got red handed caught."); Ex. J ("You flat out lied about the titration ... I still ask myself why when I wrote the letter did you end treatment?? ... ITS YOU GOT CAUGHT ... You were caught red handed.").

Finally, Doe sent Dr. Conti messages threatening to "ruin [his] name," and to bring legal action against him. See, e.g. , id. Ex. A ("I will own you in a Courtroom"); Ex. H ("I'm advising you get a legel [sic ] team because I'm coming with everything I can ...."); Ex. J ("Get your legel [sic ] team because I'm getting mine.... I'm going to ruin your fucking name."); Ex. O ("I'm going to do everything in the power of the law to destroy [you]"). Doe warned that he would "drain [Dr. Conti] of all of [his] resources," that he would "bury [his] ass alive," that he was "coming for [Dr. Conti]," and that Dr. Conti should "fucking fear [Doe]" because he was "going to destroy [Dr. Conti's] ass." See id. Exs. H, K, L.

Dr. Conti brought this action for defamation, seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. Dkt. 31. Doe counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that Dr. Conti breached his duty of confidentiality by "unnecessarily disclosing – indeed, weaponizing – Doe's confidential medical information for personal financial gain." See Dkt. 59 ¶¶ 94-106.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ " Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ). To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc. , 445 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ). A party may not "rely on mere conclusory allegations nor speculation, but instead must offer some hard evidence showing that [his] version of the events is not wholly fanciful." D'Amico v. City of New York , 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998). On a motion for summary judgment, courts "construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and [ ] resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant." Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp. , 766 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

I. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied

Doe moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim. Doe argues, inter alia , that his statements are not defamatory as a matter of law because they are statements of opinion or hyperbole. Doe Mem. of Law at 14-25. Moreover, even if the statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, Doe argues that they are not actionable because they are substantially true. Id. at 10-14. Finally, Doe argues that Dr. Conti's defamation claim is barred by the single instance rule and that Doe's statements are protected by the qualified self-interest and common interest privileges. Id. at 26-31. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.

A. Doe's Statements Are Reasonably Susceptible of a Defamatory Meaning

i. Applicable Law

A plaintiff must allege five elements to state a claim for libel under New York law: "(1) a written defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault (either negligence or actual malice depending on the status of the libeled party); (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se actionability." Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc. , 209 F.3d 163, 176 (2d Cir. 2000). The first element has four parts: "there must be (A) a writing, it must be (B) defamatory, it must be (C) factual—that is, not opinion—and it must be (D) about the plaintiff, not just a general statement." Chau v. Lewis , 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014).

"Whether particular words are defamatory presents a legal question to be resolved by the court[ ] in the first instance." Celle , 209 F.3d at 177 (quoting Aronson v. Wiersma , 65 N.Y.2d 592, 593, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138 (1985) ). The Court must determine "whether the contested statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation." Davis v. Boeheim , 24 N.Y.3d 262, 268, 998 N.Y.S.2d 131, 22 N.E.3d 999 (2014) (quoting Armstrong v....