Mcnamee v. Clemens

Decision Date03 February 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09 CV 1647(SJ)(CLP).,09 CV 1647(SJ)(CLP).
Citation762 F.Supp.2d 584
PartiesBrian G. McNAMEE, Plaintiff,v.William Roger CLEMENS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, by Earl Ward, Richard D. Emery, Debra L. Greenberger, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.Steptoe & Johnson LLP, by Evan Glassman, Joe M. Roden, Michael C. Miller, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff Brian G. McNamee (Plaintiff or “McNamee”) has brought the above-captioned action against Defendant William Roger Clemens (Defendant or “Clemens”) alleging state and common law causes of action for defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeking damages in excess of $75,000.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 31, 2009 (“Amended Complaint”) for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

Roger Clemens is a former major league baseball (“MLB”) player who was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in 1983 after playing baseball for the University of Texas. (Am. Compl. Ex. H ¶¶ 12–13). Clemens spent thirteen years with the Red Sox until he signed with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1997. (Am. Compl. Ex. A). As a member of the Blue Jays, Clemens met Brian McNamee, an athletic trainer for the Toronto organization, and began training with him in 1998. (Am. Compl. Ex. H ¶ 16). In 1999, Clemens was traded to the Yankees. One year later, reportedly at Clemens' urging, the Yankees hired McNamee as an assistant strength and conditioning coach. (Am. Compl. Ex. A). Clemens retired from the Yankees in 2003. In 2004, Clemens came out of his short-lived retirement and joined the Houston Astros for three seasons. In 2007, he signed a one-year contract with the Yankees. At present, Clemens is not a member of any professional baseball team. Although Clemens reportedly stopped working with McNamee in 2001 when he learned that McNamee was facing rape allegations in Florida, Clemens re-hired McNamee after Clemens left the Yankees in 2003 and they continued to work together in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10; Def. Mem. of Law in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss (“Def. Mem. of Law”) 10, n. 2).

Clemens is not the average MLB player; with 354 career victories and seven Cy Young Awards, Clemens is one of the most prominent pitchers in baseball history. (Am. Compl. Ex. A). However, this storied reputation was called into question after statements McNamee made accusing Clemens of steroid use became public. In the spring of 2007, federal authorities contacted McNamee in New York City in connection with the Government's criminal investigation of BALCO, a Bay Area laboratory allegedly involved in the development and sale of performance-enhancing drugs. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17). At the interview, investigators from the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California told McNamee that the Government had sufficient evidence to secure a conviction against McNamee for delivering illegal performance-enhancing drugs to athletes. In lieu of prosecution, McNamee was offered immunity for any statements he gave in relation to the Government's investigation; however, McNamee would face prosecution for perjury for any false statements he made. (Id. at ¶ 18). McNamee told investigators that he injected Clemens with steroids and Human Growth Hormone (“HGH”) during the 1998, 2000, and 2001 baseball seasons. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14, Ex. A; McNamee Decl. ¶ 12).

Specifically, McNamee told investigators that Clemens asked him about steroids around June 8–10, 1998. (Am. Compl. Ex. A). Later that summer, McNamee stated that Clemens asked to be injected with Winstrol, which Clemens provided. (Id.; Am. Compl. ¶ 13). McNamee told investigators that in 2000, after Clemens was traded to the Yankees and McNamee joined the New York team as a trainer, he injected Clemens four to six times with testosterone and H.G.H. (Id.). The next year, late in the 2001 season, McNamee said he injected Clemens at least four times with Sustanon or Deca–Durabolin, injectable steroids. (Id.). McNamee stated that the 2001 injections took place at Clemens' apartment in New York and the Yankees' Clubhouse, while others took place in Florida. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 15, Ex. F). According to McNamee, Clemens provided him with additional compensation to cover the cost of the performance enhancing drugs during 2000 and 2001. (McNamee Decl. ¶ 15).

A short time after his interview with the Government, federal authorities contacted McNamee again, this time requesting that he cooperate with an investigation being conducted by former United States Senator George Mitchell into the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the MLB (the Mitchell Commission). (Am. Compl. ¶ 19, Ex. B). On December 13, 2007, the Mitchell Commission released the findings of its investigation in its Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation Into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances By Players In Major League Baseball (the “Mitchell Report”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 20). The Mitchell Report named 89 MLB players alleged to have used performance-enhancing drugs. (Id. at ¶ 21). Clemens was named in the Mitchell Report, which included McNamee's statements concerning Clemens' drug use. (Id.). In the Report, McNamee reiterated statements made to federal investigators that Clemens first asked McNamee to inject him with steroids in 1998. (Am. Compl. Ex. F). McNamee went on to tell Mitchell that after the initial request, he injected Clemens “approximately four times in the buttocks over a several week period” and that [e]ach incident took place in Clemens' apartment in the Sky Dome.” (Id.).

Clemens has publicly denied all allegations of drug use. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 25). His efforts to clear his name after the release of the Mitchell Report have been called a “verbal fastball,” (Am. Compl. Ex. C), “a ferocious attack,” (Am. Compl. Ex. K), and “a furious and, some say, debatable public relations effort with the spin of his tightest slider,” (Am. Compl. Ex. I). In his attempt to clear his name, Clemens and his agents made a number of public statements regarding McNamee's accusations, including inter alia:

[x] December 27, 2007—Clemens' taped a 60 Minutes interview with Chris Wallace in which he denied McNamee's accusations as “totally false.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 32, Ex. F).

[x] December 14, 2007The New York Times reports that Clemens' attorney Rusty Hardin dismissed McNamee's statements as an “uncorroborated statement” from a “troubled and unreliable” witness. (Am. Compl. Ex. A).

[x] December 18, 2007The New York Times reports that Rusty Hardin publicly stated that a cooperation agreement between McNamee and the United States Attorney gave McNamee an incentive to lie. (Am. Compl. Ex. B).

[x] December 19, 2007The New York Times reports that Clemens issued a statement denying McNamee's allegations definitively,” calling the reply “a verbal fastball.” (Am. Compl. Ex. C).

[x] December 21, 2007The Houston Chronicle reports a statement from Clemens' lawyer reiterating their stance that Roger Clemens did not take steroids” and warning that “anybody who says he did had better start looking for a hell of a good lawyer.” (Am. Compl. Ex. D).

[x] December 23, 2007—Clemens issued a YouTube video statement denying the allegations, stating again that “this report is simply not true.” (Am. Compl. Ex. E).

[x] January 6, 2008—Clemens' 60 Minutes interview aired on broadcast television. In it, Clemens again denied all allegations as false and in response to a question about what motivation McNamee had to lie, stated that McNamee was able to avoid jail time for “buyin and movin steroids.” (Am. Compl. Ex. F).

[x] January 7, 2008 Clemens—held a press conference to announce that he'd filed a defamation suit against McNamee. At this conference, Clemens played a taped recording of a conversation with McNamee that had allegedly been recorded without McNamee's consent. In that recording, McNamee disclosed private medical information about his son. An article published that day reported that the suit did not seek a specific amount in damages and that it was filed to protect Clemens' reputation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 34, Ex. H).

[x] February 7, 2008The New York Times article quotes Lanny A. Breuer's (one of Clemens' attorneys) response to the revelation that McNamee kept blood stained gauze and syringes allegedly used to inject Clemens with HGH: “McNamee ‘apparently has manufactured evidence’ and is ‘a troubled man who is obsessed with doing everything possible to try to destroy Roger Clemens.’ (Am. Compl. Ex P).

[x] February 8, 2008The New York Times article quotes a statement from Clemens' lawyer that “in the cheapest mean spirited stunt, [McNamee] has made up a bunch of evidence” and arguing, presumably in reference to McNamee, [t]his is a man who wanted to shake [Clemens] down.” The article goes on to report that Clemens' lawyers had unleashed a “ferocious” attack on McNamee and the physical evidence McNamee was said to have kept to support his allegations. Clemens' lawyer was also quoted accusing McNamee of “constantly lying” and stating that saving the evidence was “a psycho thing to do.” (Am. Compl. Ex. K).

[x] February 8, 2008The Houston Chronicle reports comments from Rusty Hardin describing McNamee's evidence (syringes and other material allegedly used to inject Clemens with steroids) as “fabricated waste.” Hardin continued, “this guy is off the deep-end. All it shows is what a desperate person is trying to ruin Roger.” (Am. Compl. Ex. O).

[x] March 5, 2006The New York Times reports a statement made by Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, in an email: Brian McNamee's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Restis v. Am. Coal. Against Nuclear Iran, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 30, 2014
    ...officer was a “crook” who ran a “very dirty business” must be viewed as loose, figurative, or hyperbolic); McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 604 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (“Colloquial phrases like ‘shake down’ or ‘crawling up your back’ are hyperbolic; they are ‘loose’ statements that don't reaso......
  • Germain v. M & T Bank Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 19, 2015
    ...Sleepy's LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp., 779 F.3d 191, 199 (2d Cir.2015) (collecting cases); see also McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 604–05 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (collecting cases and noting that "[a] review of case law indicates that the type of consent accepted as a completed defe......
  • Victor Restis & Enters. Shipping & Trading S.A. v. Am. Coal. Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., 13 Civ. 5032(ER).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 30, 2014
    ...officer was a “crook” who ran a “very dirty business” must be viewed as loose, figurative, or hyperbolic); McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 604 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (“Colloquial phrases like ‘shake down’ or ‘crawling up your back’ are hyperbolic; they are ‘loose’ statements that don't reaso......
  • Davis v. Boeheim
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2014
    ...abuse allegations against Fine in order to get money, and whether Davis had made false statements in the past (see McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 [E.D.N.Y.2011] [distinguishing general denials of accusations from specific statements that accuser “will be proven a liar and has li......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...only by the same qualified privilege extended to others who publish the contents of a filed complaint.”). But see McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F. Supp. 2d 584, 607 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (under Texas law, “courts have withheld the application of the privilege where ‘the court found that the privilege w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT