Zimmerman v. AL Jazeera Am., LLC

• Decision Date: 31 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16–cv–0013 (KBJ),16–cv–0013 (KBJ)
• Citation: 246 F.Supp.3d 257
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Ryan W. ZIMMERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants.

246 F.Supp.3d 257

Ryan W. ZIMMERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 16–cv–0013 (KBJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 31, 2017

Ellyde R. Thompson, Kevin S. Reed, Robert L. Raskopf, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, William A. Burck, Scott E. Lerner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Andrew Dewald Herman, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew Lawrence Deutsch, Francis W. Ryan, Rachel Stevens, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY, Anthony David Gill, DLA Piper LLP, Constance Morrow Pendleton, Lisa Beth Zycherman, Robert Corn–Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Jay Ward Brown, Matthew L. Schafer, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge

In any lawsuit claiming defamation of character, the status of the individual who was allegedly defamed is one key determinant of the applicable legal standard. Whereas a private individual can maintain a suit for defamation if the publisher of the allegedly false and defamatory statement has acted negligently in disseminating the falsehood, public figure plaintiffs must demonstrate that the allegedly false and defamatory statement was made with "actual malice." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 279–80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) ; see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323, 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In this case, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs—two Major League Baseball ("MLB") players—are public figures. The question is whether their complaint contains allegations of fact that, if true, are sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the named defendants—a major media conglomerate, one of the company's news producers, and an independent consultant—published a false and defamatory statement about these plaintiffs, and did so with the requisite intent.

The allegedly false and defamatory statements at issue here are expressed in a documentary film called "The Dark Side," which purports to investigate the supply chain of illicit performance-enhancing drugs ("PEDs") that exists for elite athletes. (See First Am. Compl. ("Compl."), ECF No. 9, ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs Ryan Zimmerman and Ryan Howard claim that the film's producers (Al Jazeera¹ and Deborah Davies), and also Liam Collins, one of the individuals who is featured prominently in the documentary (collectively, "Defendants"), are liable for defamation and the related tort of false light invasion of privacy because of allegedly false PED-related representations that are made about Plaintiffs in the film. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants elicited from an alleged supplier of steroids false and defamatory statements about Zimmerman's and Howard's use of PEDs, captured those statements on video via a hidden camera, and then incorporated the supplier's false allegations into "The Dark Side[,]" despite Defendants' knowledge of facts that cast doubt on the truthfulness of the supplier's representations, including the fact that the supplier had recanted the allegedly defamatory accusations prior to the film's release. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 73; Howard Compl., Dkt. No. 10, in Civ. Action No. 16–cv–0014, ¶ 1.)

Before this Court at present are two motions to dismiss: one that Al Jazeera and Davies have filed jointly (see Defs. Al Jazeera and Davies' Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mot."), ECF No. 26), and another that Collins has submitted on his own behalf (see Def. Collins's Mot. to Dismiss ("Def. Collins's Mot."), ECF No. 24).² Al Jazeera and Davies argue that "The Dark Side" does not contain actionable defamatory statements about Zimmerman or Howard, because the pertinent representations are not reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning, and in any event, the complaint fails to plead facts that would support an inference of actual malice. (See Defs. Al Jazeera and Davies' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. ("Defs.' Mem."), ECF No. 26–1, at 26–45.)³ Collins—who is not an Al Jazeera employee—incorporates the arguments that Al Jazeera and Davies make into his motion by reference, and he further contends that the complaint does not adequately allege that he has published any defamatory statements at all, much less that he acted with actual malice pertaining to any such publication. (See Def. Collins's Mem. in Supp. of Def. Collins's Mot. ("Def. Collins's Mem."), ECF No. 24–1, at 6 n.1, 12–19.) Zimmerman and Howard oppose Defendants' motions, arguing that a reasonable viewer could have understood "The Dark Side" to convey the message that Plaintiffs have used PEDs (see Pls.' Consolidated Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. and Def. Collins's Mot. ("Pls.' Opp'n"), ECF No. 30, at 18–21), and they further maintain that Defendants' knowledge of the supplier's recantation supports the inference that all three Defendants published the statements with actual malice (see id. at 21–27).

For the reasons explained below, this Court concludes that the complaint that Zimmerman and Howard have filed contains sufficient allegations to state defamation and false light claims against Al Jazeera and Davies, but only with respect to the statements contained in the film ; the statements made in the accompanying news article do not convey a defamatory meaning. The Court further finds that the complaint does not state a defamation claim or a false light claim against Collins, because the complaint does not contain facts from which a reasonable jury might conclude that Collins published a false and defamatory statement about Zimmerman or Howard. Accordingly, Al Jazeera's and Davies's motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Collins's motion will be GRANTED in full. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall follow.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' complaints, and the exhibits attached to them, allege pertinent background facts, which are described briefly below. Notably, although Zimmerman and Howard initially filed two separate legal actions, this Court has consolidated the cases with the parties' consent, and the instant Memorandum Opinion primarily analyzes the complaint and motions that have been filed Zimmerman's case.⁴

A. The Making Of "The Dark Side"

"The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" is a 49–minute documentary that Al Jazeera produced in 2015. (See "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" ("Film"), Ex. L to Compl., ECF No. 9–12; see also Tr. of "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" ("Film Tr."), Ex. A to Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 26–4.)⁵ "The Dark Side" purports to reveal little-known facts about the supply chain of elicit performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports (see Film. Tr. at 2), and the film features an undercover investigation that Al Jazeera producers allegedly conducted over a period of eight months (see id. ). Using a combination of taped confessionals and hidden camera footage that is intended to "capture what athletes call the dark side[; i.e.,] the secret world of doping" (id. ), the film primarily details and displays the producers' efforts to "catch" on film individuals who purport to distribute PEDs to athletes—people such as "[d]octors, chemists, [and] chiropractors"—as they talk about the substances and "the players" they "claim[ ] [they've] doped to fame" (id. ).

Deborah Davies, a British reporter employed in Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit, served as the lead reporter of the investigation that is featured in the film (see Compl. ¶ 33) and is also the principal narrator in the documentary (see generally Film Tr.). Although much of "The Dark Side" consists of hidden camera footage of secretly-record discussions with various alleged medical professionals, it is Davies's voice-overs that help to explain the contours of the undercover investigation; consequently, her remarks provide the context for the photos, video clips, and statements in the film that expressly link certain professional athletes to the underground world of performance-enhancing drugs. (See, e.g. , Film Tr. at 3 (during a scene depicting fans at a professional football game, Davies suggests that the investigation seeks to explore "extraordinary claims that raise questions" about whether a particular "American sporting hero"—who she mentions by name—is "linked" to PEDs).)

At the outset of the film, Davies asserts that "[t]he best way to understand the dark side of sport is to meet an athlete who's been there—and back." (Id. ) Davies then introduces the audience to a former track star who had been banned from his sport for using PEDs, and who claims that he first obtained PEDs from a particular Bahamian doctor. (Id. at 4–5.) In order to investigate this claim, Al Jazeera's producers decided to "[w]ork[ ] with a British athlete" to "infiltrate a network [of suppliers] who claim their scientific expertise can cheat the system." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the athlete Al Jazeera and Davies enlisted—Liam Collins—is "a former hurdler, would-be bobsledder, and bankrupt real-estate promoter" who has "no known news reporting training or experience." (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 40.) However, Davies explains in the film that Al Jazeera's producers considered Collins to be "perfectly placed to go undercover" (Film Tr. at 6), and that the producers approached him with a "proposal": "help us to investigate doping in sport ... by claiming to be an athlete desperate to qualify for the Rio Olympics." (Id. )

After Collins agreed to participate in Al Jazeera's investigation, the producers helped to "test out [his] cover story" by connecting him with the Bahamian doctor previously mentioned. (Id. ; see also id. at 7.) From there, Collins spent six months in an undercover capacity, chasing leads and trying to contact various alleged suppliers of PEDs in the Bahamas, Canada, and Texas. (See Compl. ¶ 40.) According to the complaint, Collins's modus operandi generally involved "[f...