Doe v. Netflix, Inc.
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-01281-TWP-MJD |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Parties | JANE DOE, JANET ROE, JANICE COE, Plaintiffs,[1] v. NETFLIX, INC., NETFLIX WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, REALHOUSE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) by Defendants Netflix, Inc., Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC, and RealHouse Productions LLC[2] (collectively, "Defendants") (Filing No. 61). The Plaintiffs Jane Doe, Janet Roe, and Janice Coe (collectively "Plaintiffs") brought this action against the Defendants alleging they committed various torts by disclosing Plaintiffs' identities to millions of people on social media and on Defendants' streaming platform in a documentary ("Our Father") without their consent[3] (Filing No. 1-1; Filing No. 77-1; Filing No. 77-2). Defendants argue Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because, among other things, they contravene the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 9 of the Indiana Constitution (Filing No. 62). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required when reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs as the non-moving party. See Emergency Servs. Billing Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 459, 464 (7th Cir. 2012).
Individuals hoping to one day have children, but who for whatever reasons could not naturally conceive them, entrusted fertility specialist Dr. Donald Cline with that task. (Filing No. 1-1 at ¶ 22). Unbeknown to anyone, Dr. Cline inseminated many of his female patients with his own semen, ultimately, fathering approximately ninety-four (94) children (the "Secret Children"). Id. at ¶ 24. Dr. Cline's secret was not discovered until 2015 after some took at-home DNA tests through an online testing[4] service. Id. at ¶ 25. It was not until 2019 that the Plaintiffs made the same discovery after submitting their DNA samples to another online testing service. Id. at ¶¶ 2830. The Plaintiffs held this information in close confidence. Id. at ¶ 32. Only, "[c]ertain of Plaintiff's biological half siblings were able to see [their] identit[ies] through the DNA website[s].
This information was kept secured to a limited number of persons, namely, certain of the biological half siblings, through passwords and other means." Id. at ¶ 33.
Some of the Secret Children were rightly eager for answers and wanted to expose Dr. Cline's fraud. Id. at ¶ 35. They reported him to local news outlets, government agencies[5], and the like (Filing No. 62 at 12). Local news outlets investigated and reported[6]on the story. Id. Thereafter, national news outlets reported on Dr. Cline's fertility fraud. Id. This created a media frenzy surrounding Dr. Cline's conduct. Id. In 2020, the Defendants contacted some of the Secret Children, including Jacoba Ballard ("Ballard"). Defendants offered them "the opportunity to discuss being on camera for [a] documentary and to submit photos." (Filing No. 1-1. at ¶¶ 34, 36.)
However, some of the Secret Children, including the Plaintiffs, expressed concerns with being included in the documentary. Id. at ¶ 36. The "Defendants made clear to the [] Secret Children that no Secret Child would be identified in the documentary without his or her explicit consent." Id. at ¶ 36. In April 2021, the Defendants sent a written statement to Doe and Roe, which read in part: "I know that some of you were more comfortable than others being involved.. You will not be identified (unless you've already given us explicit permission to do so.." (the 'Non Identification Pledge')." Id. at ¶ 37.
The three Plaintiffs communicated to Defendants that they did not have their permission to disclose their names in the documentary (Filing No. 1-1 at ¶ 38; Filing No. 77-1 at ¶ 42; Filing No. 77-2 at ¶ 37.)
Approximately a year later, in April 2022, the Defendants shared a trailer of the documentary to millions on their social media accounts. (Filing No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 51, 62-67.) The social media posts embedded links to segments of the documentary. Id. The Plaintiffs' names were displayed, and they were identified as Secret Children. Id. at ¶¶ 61-67. In May 2022, millions of people, including at least 250,000 Indiana residents were able to view "Our Father" on Netflix's streaming platform. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 40-49, 52, 53, 57. The documentary depicts Ballard uncovering the truth of her biological parentage, the identities of her previously unknown siblings, the extent of Dr. Cline's fertility fraud, and Dr. Cline's subsequent conviction (Filing No. 62 at 23). At one point during "Our Father", Ballard is seen[7]reviewing her DNA results and scrolling through the names of her half-siblings. Id. It is at this moment that the Plaintiffs' names appear on the screen: "Coe's name appeared on screen for less than 1 second and Doe's and Roe's names appeared on screen for approximately 9 seconds...." Id. at 33.
The Plaintiffs were astonished that the Defendants broke its pledge (Filing No. 1-1) and even more perplexed because the Defendants blurred the "names and photographs of numerous Secret Children in the documentary." Id. at ¶ 55. Plaintiffs were offended by the false and misleading written statement-The Non-Identification Pledge-communicated to them by Defendants and disclosure of their names in Our Father. Id. at ¶¶ 11-16. The Plaintiffs then filed their respective state court actions alleging the following claims against the Defendants: (Count 1) Public Disclosure of Private Facts; (Count 2) Deception, a class A misdemeanor under the Crime Victim's Relief Act ("CVRA"), Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3 as repealed by P.L.174-2021, SEC.45, eff. July 1, 2021; (Count 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"); (Count 4) Identity Deception, a Level 5 or 6 felony, under the CVRA, Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3.5 P.L.174-2021, SEC.46, eff. July 1, 2021; and (Count 5) theft, a Class A misdemeanor or a Level 5 or 6 felony, under the CVRA, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2. Id.
Soon after, the Defendants appeared in the state court cases and, on June 27, 2023, all three cases were removed to this Court (Filing No. 1-1; Filing No. 77-1; Filing No. 77-2). The three cases were then consolidated (Filing No. 27); thereafter, the Defendants filed the pending Motion. (Filing No. 61).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment after the parties have filed a complaint and an answer, and the pleadings are closed. Rule 12(c) motions are analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp., 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007); Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d 45, 46 (7th Cir. 1996). The complaint must allege facts that are "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although "detailed factual allegations" are not required, mere "labels," "conclusions," or "formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action" are insufficient. Id. Stated differently, the complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). To be facially plausible, the complaint must allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court will grant a Rule 12(c) motion only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief." N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Craigs, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 12 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. 1993)). Although the factual allegations in the complaint are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party; the court is "not obliged to ignore any facts set forth in the complaint that undermine the plaintiff's claim or to assign any weight to unsupported conclusions of law." Id. (quoting R.J.R. Serv., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 895 F.2d 279, 281 (7th Cir. 1989)). Id. (internal citations omitted).
The Plaintiffs initiated this action alleging the unauthorized publication of their private facts and appropriation of their names and images constitutes (Count 1) public disclosure of private facts, (Count 2) deception, (Count 3) IIED, (Count 4) identity deception, and (Count 5) theft. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the First Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of Indiana Constitution because the disclosed information is a matter of legitimate public concern. Alternatively, Plaintiffs' privacy claims must fail because Plaintiffs' identities were not privately held but rather voluntarily disclosed on a public website. Further, Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial